User talk:Matt Smith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:52, 17 January 2017

Welcome!

Hello, Matt Smith, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Deem (disambiguation), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Norvoid (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Deem (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Deem (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Norvoid (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deem (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deem (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deem (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

I reverted your edits to Political status of Taiwan because even though you are correct in differentiating the ROC from the island of Taiwan, the point in including recognition of the ROC government is to illustrate how some governments recognize the ROC as a legitimate government (and thus the ruler of Taiwan), whereas others do not. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 04:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China on Taiwan

Moved to Talk:Republic of China on Taiwan § Republic of China on Taiwan

– Matt Smith (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Matt Smith. 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]

囧rz

一直以為您是英文維基人，直到我突然發現了這個：zh:Special:diff/42185166 囧rz...--逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

是的，我本來只編輯中文維基，今年才決定正式涉足英文維基。您在我的中文的用戶討論頁留言後，我以為您知道我在兩邊都有涉足。--Matt Smith (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag change

Hi there, there's a discussion here regarding the name change of the article. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of the ROC in Mainland to ROC in Taiwan

Hi again, you might want to discuss this issue here because the ROC in Taiwan is the continuation of the 1912 ROC similar to how the Baltic states did. 174.88.142.106 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to merge the Template:Taiwan topics into Template:China topics

If you look closely, the PRC and ROC share the same history as China. I'm thinking the Template:Taiwan topics into Template:China topics since two different country names don't make sense. See Template talk:China topics for more. Wrestlingring (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I respectfully disagree with the proposed merge because of two reasons:

I think using "Taiwan" to nickname the ROC is confusing and misleading because "Taiwan" is the island's name, not the ROC's. So the proposed merge is confusing and misleading as well. I would agree with the merge if the template were called Template:Republic of China topics and has no content related to Taiwan (island).
I agree that the ROC and the PRC are one China, but I disagree that Taiwan (island) belongs to the ROC. So the proposed merge misleads readers into believing that Taiwan (island) belongs to the ROC and China.

--Matt Smith (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

Hey Matt, is this right? I edited the Jen-Hsun Huang article and she was born in (Nationalist) China (which was during the period when the ROC was recognized by the UN). What do you think? If they revert this edit, talk to the users who reverted that edit. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think Taiwan (island) does not belong to China (ROC or PRC) so I wouldn't use the term "Taiwan Province, China". --Matt Smith (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are especially needed when negating previous content, especially technical info

Hi Matt. Thanks for finding a source and correcting the information at Microdata (HTML). [1] A situation like that begs for a detailed edit summary because of the technical nature of the information and reference, and because you've reversed what the content previously said. Without an edit summary the edit could appear to be vandalism or a WP:POV-violation, and the highly technical reference makes it difficult to tell. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will be more careful next time. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I reverted this edit of yours. This needs sources describing it as such. I couldn't find regime in any source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Republic of Formosa, 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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Republic of Formosa. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republic of Formosa. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war has happened. Check the history carefully. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a revert where you are edit warring. This is disruptive, so please don't do this. You have been reverted previously in this article as well. If you want to implement changes, get consensus on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting text according to the source is consistent with the policy and is not an edit warring. Read the definition of edit warring. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the changes of any editor is edit warring. I am asking you do discuss first. Stop removing content just because you think it is correct. Discuss and get consensus for your changed on the talk page first. If you do it again, I will report you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the change is based on a reliable source. Just because you disagree with the editing does not mean you have the right to accuse others of edit warring. But now that you have shown your disagreement (in an inappropriate way, imo), I will discuss with you in the Talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even if the change is based on a reliable source, it is still considered edit warring. You can ask any admin about this. The correct approach is to start a talk page discussion when you have been reverted the first time (See WP:BRD). You had earlier started a discussion at Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title - that was an appropriate thing to do (and as you saw editors ultimately disagreed with your rationale). You should start a discussion here as well. If you feel that I am wrong, I don't mind starting an RFC to get more opinions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the related text from WP:BRD that says the correct approach is to start a talk page discussion after being reverted the first time. The discussion at Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title is not done yet, and I was just planning to continue on it. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:BRD (read it in full), to understand what is BRD and why is it helpful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the related text to prove your own words. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am sorry to say but it is obvious if you read the page (and this should be easy enough for even a non-native English speaker). If you are unable to understand it, then perhaps you should consider editing the Wikipedia in your native language. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot provide a quote, I would then reasonably assume that you misinterpreted the explanatory supplement. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is called Wikilawyering (and it is disruptive and has led to editors being blocked before). For your information, BRD stands for bold, revert and discuss. You make a bold edit, I revert and then we discuss and attain consensus. (It's there right at the top of WP:BRD btw, so I am amazed if you could not understand it). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for "If you cannot provide a quote, I would then reasonably assume that you misinterpreted the explanatory supplement.", you can keep assuming anything, but if you are disruptive/edit war, then you will still be blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not if I was just reasonably "assuming" based on one's acts. Just because the explanatory supplement is called BRD does not mean D should be performed after the first R. Please do not use your own interpretation of the explanatory supplement before confirming it. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you apparently have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, I can't do anything more. Next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will simply be blocked without warning. If you think I am wrong, go ask any admin. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you do not make accusations so easily in the future. Read policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the personal attack? You were edit warring and I warned you. Is that a personal attack? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just "edit warring". There were also "Wikilawyering", "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude", and "disrupt Wikipedia". And from my point of view, it is actually you that look more like the disruptor. So do not make accusations so fast. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those were personal attacks. Believe me, I have dealt with multiple editors before and this kind of behaviour doesn't help in a collaborative setting. If you feel I am misinterpreting any policy, you are welcome to ask any uninvolved admin. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to degrade others' personalities is, imo, a form of personal attack. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of WP:IAR

How is this an application of WP:IAR? And again, you refused to discuss but reverted to your preferred version here. Did you check out the discussion on the talk --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan under Japanese rule. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2017 (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:Matt_Smith reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 03:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about the history of Taiwan

You've been warned for edit warring about the history of Taiwan per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You are risking a block if you make any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. The statement on your user page may suggest that you are here on Wikipedia to impose your personal point of view and not to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith; you were warned by EdJohnston, above, to specifically avoid 'mak[ing] any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page.' Your two most recent edits suggest you have not taken this advice to heart. You edit on Republic of Formosa, This, with the edit summary 'more info in the talk page' did not have a consensus on that page for change. In fact, your remark on that page (that you 'could have go ahead and perform the change' suggests that you have fundamentally misunderstood the advice above, and WP:CONSENSUS generally. Secondly, this revert on Two Chinas was accompanied by the edit summary 'The particular reverter didn't manage to provide the reasons within the consentient time. Restored the previous revision' (which refers to this demand that your changes are acepted within two hours on Lemongirl942's talkpage). This likewise had no consensus, and relied only on your imposition of an artificial deadline.

You appear to be continuing with the same uncollegial,dismissive, and partisan editing that resulted in the previous WP:ANEW Talk:Republic of Formosa report. Please note that this now a behavioural discussion and no longer one of content. I suggest you self-revert your edits and await input from a broader audience of editors. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 You've been '''warned''' for edit warring about the history of Taiwan per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=760366786&oldid=760364842 a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard]. You are risking a block if you make any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMatt_Smith&type=revision&diff=756424926&oldid=724291709 statement on your user page] may suggest that you are here on Wikipedia to impose your personal point of view and not to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
+*Matt Smith; you were warned by {{u|EdJohnston}}, above, to specifically ''avoid'' '{{green|mak[ing] any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page}}.' Your two most recent edits suggest you have not taken this advice to heart. You edit on [[Republic of Formosa]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 This], with the edit summary 'more info in the talk page' did not have a consensus on that page for change. In fact, your remark on that page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760489698&oldid=760321175&title=Talk:Republic_of_Formosa that you] '{{green|could have go ahead and perform the change}}' suggests that you have fundamentally misunderstood the advice above, and [[WP:CONSENSUS]] generally. Secondly, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Chinas&diff=prev&oldid=760507162 this revert] on [[Two Chinas]] was accompanied by the edit summary '{{green|The particular reverter didn't manage to provide the reasons within the consentient time. Restored the previous revision}}' (which refers to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760490149&oldid=760482970&title=User_talk:Lemongirl942 this demand that your changes are acepted within two hours] on {{u|Lemongirl942}}'s talkpage). This likewise had no consensus, and relied only on your imposition of an artificial [[WP:DEADLINE|deadline]].
+:You appear to be continuing with the same uncollegial,[[WP:BATTLEGROUND|dismissive]], and [[WP:POV|partisan]] editing that resulted in the previous [[WP:ANEW]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760366786&oldid=760364842&title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Talk:Republic of Formosa report]. Please note that this now a behavioural discussion and no longer one of content. I suggest you self-revert your edits and await input from a broader audience of editors. Cheers, [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 12:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)