You may call me by my full screenname, "Caradhras" alone, or, rarely, "CA" and variants. Preferably not CA for obvious reasons, and definitely not "Aiguo". CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babble

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Addis Ababa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gangwon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghurs, Taiwan edits - removing relevant references

Dear Sir, please stop removing relevant references from articles such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghurs&diff=prev&oldid=876747398 - there is a mountain of evidence from reliable sources that conducted their own investigations (BBC, the New York times, the UN report)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&type=revision&diff=876537544&oldid=876494707 - threats of military force from China's president & General Secretary of the party, Mr. Xi are a significant degradation of relations and a throwback to the 1998-2008 policy of hostile non-contact;

I would also suggest that you use the standard signature in comments, instead of isolating yourself from feedback.

Thank you - CultureArchitect (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UN report has been scanty on the evidence, and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to an exile Uyghur organization based in Istanbul (use Google Translate). The original Reuters report on the matter only cites members of UN panel; there has never been an official UN policy statement. For more on the problematic aspects of reporting on this alleged mass internment, see This source.

Until major reversals in links such as nonstop Cross-strait commercial flights, Xi's statements merely accentuate the Anti-Secession Law, which has never been repealed since passage in 2005. The user who added the references has a history of adding tangentially relevant, WP:UNDUE material.

I would also suggest that you stop patronizing someone who is clearly more well-informed on matters pertaining to this area of the world. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. The references that were added to the article provided independent reports from additional reliable sources i.e. BBC, the New York times, the UN report. To remove these references because you believe the "UN report has been scanty on the evidence and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to ..." is bad editing. CultureArchitect (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, nowhere in the Reuters article was the suggestion made that the statements of the UN panel members represented official UN opinion, let alone a so-called "UN report", which has not yet to be produced on the matter. Before smugly lecturing others, properly read articles beyond their headlines to conduct your own critical thinking; otherwise, bugger off my talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Fischer

You did a revert, with an edit summary saying something about "implicit promises to retire". What is that about? To whom is it addressed?

After the revert, you restored a category that had been removed by the revert. In addition, the revert changed "Margin of victory" back to "Margin". Was this your intention? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was addressed at a recurring problematic IP editor who, on more than one occasion, has posted messages "Block me forever (or indefinitely)". The user has previously been blocked for egregious edit-warring and, unfortunately, left off the hook for subsequent infractions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the guy whose edits ended up changing "Margin" to "Margin of victory". He followed an apparently reasonable procedure here: he made an edit; I reverted it and suggested an alternative; he went with the alternative. This outcome was OK with me, and I am inclined to restore it. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section about requesting to be blocked and never unblocked is now removed and there were no further infractions as far as I can see for a few reasons including the fact that only 1 block was performed and any future AN3 discussions involving me after that didn't result in any action nor was there any violation. Also I pretty much never tried to be problematic. That's just what I think and therefore not telling anyone to think a particular way.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW If you don't want me to put a block request on my talk page you can have talk page editing disabled for me.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was stressed back then (not now).211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd or pretend to be stupid. The block settings only allow for talk page access to be revoked as a more stringent setting. The only other option is if your talk page is semi-protected, which is unlikely to occur without disruption from other IPs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I've seen discussions on talk pages requesting to have another user's talk page editing rights removed and that's what was done to the user, nothing else. Basically I actually thought removing talk page editing rights could be done as a standalone thing. Anyway I was stressed at time of requesting but not now (as I said before).211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No links, and it did not happen. I was stressed at time of requesting So, you could have quietly stepped away from Wikipedia instead of throwing temper tantra left and right. You should know better than to edit under a cloud. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WelllSpeakinf of the 2nd sentence there's always the chance of going back to editing which did in fact happen. 211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

End of conversation, now go for a morning jog in Melbourne, FFS. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I don't do morning jogs (I think the point is just to stay calm). I'm an early riser recently (including the day I posted this).211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chrystia Freeland page

On 2018-12-06, you've reverted my edit on the Chrystia Freeland page with a remark "overt POV-pushing by pro-Svoboda" IP.

- First of all, I'm probably as far removed from being "pro-Svoboda" as possible.

- Second, your remark shows that you most likely have no idea what you're talking about.

- Third, and finally, why not revert the original edits which clearly show a pro-Russian-propaganda bias?

All these questions are, of course, assuming that you've acted in good faith, and are not a part of the Russian propaganda effort.