This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am sorry for my written English.
But I want change Text under one photography, about huge air pollution.
"Heavy air pollution has resulted in widespread smog. These photographs, taken in August 2005, show the variations in Beijing's air quality." On that photo it is shown not pollution air, but also simple fog. In Beijing it is very often fog. But you can see very often the same picture in the villages and mountains around Beijing.
IVDmitriy (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just return from Beijing. I spent 8 days in there and 7 days it was fog. Also I visited village (6 hours from Beijing), Beidaihe (4 hours from Beijing) and Mountains (2 hours from Beijing). Everywhere it was fog. I can sent photo. That photos in Wikipedia definitely can't be used for describe pollution in Beijing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IVDmitriy (talk • contribs)
Yes, but people who live in Beijing say, that it is typical whether (fog and white sky). On that pictures definetly is fog (may be with pollution). And we can ask people from Chinesse Wikipedia, people who live in Beijing all time, Ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.156.146 (talk • contribs)
This section including a lot without a fair data to show us the exact air quality level. Some harzardous days and some doubtful reports were listed to "describe" how terrible Beijing is. All of these are not scientific attitudes. Just as I said in the article, compared to other cities in east China, Beijing's air quality is more changeable and polarized, and very sensitive to the wind direction, so both very good days and very bad days of Beijing are much more then such as Nanjing, Xi'An and even if Guangzhou(Canton). Due to the mountain-valley breeze, each level's percentage measured by hours can bestly show us this characters. However, nearly all the official statistics are measured by days or average, so I had to publish my personal calculation using the official initial data. BeijingCup (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content you are adding is not reliably sourced and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia. It just appears you want to debunk the claims that Beijing's air pollution has been bad. Wikipedia is not here to post annual reports. It's for general facts. Do not add the content, again, because you are using pages that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous to refuse my post just because it's not "general"(if you are not just for the content). In this items, I can see just "in 2011,""In January" etc, if you say my post is "annual" but not "general", why these examples for just a few specially chosen bad days (such as 886 micrograms per cubic meter, even it's not a day but an hours in a chosen area, neither "time" or "space" are general) are "genaral"?
About the source, if you refuse the second for it's my personal calculation, but the first one that show the annual mean value of the concentration (89.5 micrograms per cubic meter) is official doubtless, you should admit it.
I'm not here to say Beijing's air quaility is not bad——absolutly it's much worse than cities like Tokyo, New York, Sydney etc, I just want you to stop giving reader's impression that most days are "hazardous" or "beyond index". air qualities of New Delhi, south of Hebei Province,part of Henan, Shandong, Anhui and Hubei Province etc has been also much worse than Beijing, especially New Delhi.
Simply do not add the section to the article again. You cannot use your own personal calculations for Wikipedia. There is no need to report on an annual pollution report on this project. If you add it without a consensus again, you may be blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had ALREADY ABANDONED to post my personal calculations, and please note that the density of 89.5 micrograms and that of 70-100 for last ten years are all OFFICIAL and I had already posted the doubtless reliable links from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. why some special bad hours can be listed and even misinterpreted into all "mid-January"(about ten days), but the annual/decade mean level or even just my correction for the obviously mistake to be refused ? There is also some qualitative description such us "often bad especially winter", how can you see these and the above-mentioned mistakes are"reliably sourced"?BeijingCup (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm NOT posting the content a gain(though I wouldn't break the Three-revert rule as I would change my post everytime), but you didn't answer my question in the last post at all, you just use the word "simply" to block me. I'm wondering if there will be other editor visit this talk. I can hardly accept your attitude, if you refuse to give me a persuasive reply, I may lose some respect to the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeijingCup (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get out of WP:3RR by slightly changing what you added each time. And the article just does not need this extra paragraph to attempt to debunk the previous statement that the air quality has been poor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)\[reply]
I didn't just slighty change it but completely give up the data based on my personal calculation. I have emphasized that I was just to correct the wrong data but not to debunk any so-called "statement"（exactly on the opposite, on the last post i said the air quality "continue to deteriorate", "changeable, and often bad"), you are not reading what I said. By the way, it will be you to first break the 3RR(if you are not the official editor), the wiki never suggested editor to remove other's post rudely. Please note again that the density of 89.5 micrograms and that of 70-100 for last ten years are all OFFICIAL and I had already posted the doubtless reliable links from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, you have no right to judge whether these sources are "needed", an average data is much worthy than that of the special chosen bad hours(and even be misinterpreted). BeijingCup (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you completely changed it. You are still attempting to restore content that another editor has removed. And I do not know if the websites that you are providing qualify as reliable souces under Wikipedia's rules as I cannot personally read Chinese. Not to mention that this website seems to suggest that right now the air quality is "unhealthy". Your contributions do not belong on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said I'm attempting to restore content that you has removed, but in other word, you are doing the same things——remove content that I has posted. So if it's me to break the rules but not you, is it the correct understanding that it's because you have more permission or administration privilege? At least I tried to change my word to mee the requirement, while you were just removing them.
You added the content first. It was removed. At that point you should not have put it back in any form and began the discussion here to advocate for its inclusion. It does not matter if you changed anything. You were still edit warring. And we do not need to give such exact measurements. It is not relevant for a general article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the rule says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.", so why it was not you who did the first reversion? You undid my actions.I just added the content and that may not be called an "undo". BeijingCup (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant re-insertions of the contested content, despite it being in a new form subsequent times, still counts as undoing another editor's actions. But this is not relevant. Read WP:BRD: you made a bold edit to add the information, I reverted you, that means a discussion begins instead of you trying to add the same information back, but in a slightly different way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have requested a third person, but did you mean that you insisted your viewpoint after reading above link for English? Thanks to Nowa, I'm pleased to see that obviously mistake likes "The concentration of toxic small particles in Jan-Feb 2014 was at highest 26 times the level considered safe by WHO." was removed. BeijingCup (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
