User talk:Symphony Regalia

Conspiratorial thinking

Look, maybe I was too insulting of you to begin with, but the problem is that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engaged with Dekimasu on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? I have checked twitter and "China virus" is not a widely used term on there, with less than a dozen tweets an hour using the term. I don't know Dekimasu in any capacity outside the Coronavirus article, though I have great respect for him. What I would like to address is your conspiratorial thinking. We are not trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese goverment, it is just that we think that the name isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:, The evidence is the google ngram viewer results as I noted on the AfD discussion. The phrase has been used in English consistently since 1984, with the earliest use in 1959. I attempted to make the disambig page in question more nuanced, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I wrote this over 3 weeks ago, I have already contributed to the AfD discussion and agree that the article should be kept. This was about a separate discussion on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

You are free to make bold edits, but please follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If your edits are challanged, you are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page so a consensus may be reached. Calling a popular term a misnomer in the intro is inserting a clear WP:POV. Also don't edit logged out to evade a block. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am here to strike through the last part of my comment, I see you've been impersonated by a vandal who was trying to get you into trouble, sorry for that. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Your editing history consists almost solely of WP:POVPUSHING, and has for the most part not produced any meaningful improvement and has only resulted in wasting other editors valuable time. While you're clearly not a troll, merely an obstinate pedant, you're just as disruptive. You can go through my editing history and see that I have productively contributed to this enycyclopedia while you have not. You have become fixated on the fact that I have repeatedly insulted you, and you think that I am somehow persecuting you, which is delusional, I hold no more power than any other wikipedia editor, but you somehow think you deserve respect despite the fact than pretty much all yur editing is unconstructive. I still haven't got an answer as to why you reverted the edit by the Architect sock on Dekimasu's talk page, reverting users edits to their own talk page is a huge-no-no. If this pattern of behaviour continues then this will probably end up at the administrators noticeboard. Every other editor who has expressed an opinion diagrees with you. Do something productive with your time or don't contribute at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Symphony Regalia. I first became aware of the issues at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 when I closed this edit warring report that you filed. Now that I have perused the discussion on that talk page, I have to agree that you are wasting others' time. You also believe that Hemiauchenia filed "two bogus reports to intimate me". This is after you were blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on 5 March. Since that block expired it is hard for me to identify anything useful that you have done. Administrators have the authority to issue blocks under WP:NOTHERE if they perceive that someone's edits are not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe any of these accusations are warranted, and I don't see how discussing improvements to an article can be seen as a waste of time. Regardless, the discussion is rather stale as only two people have chimed in, so I am waiting to give time for other editor opinions. I am also contributing to other articles. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Hemiauchenia, Wikipedia isn't the place for "but I was here first" type arguments or harassment as you are doing. A simple "I disagree for these reasons..." would suffice. 24.26.218.181 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@24.26.218.181: It wasn't harassment, I was simply being abrasive because he was being obstinant. My main issue though is that you shouldn't be editing an article viewed by tens of thousands of people a day without singnificant editing experience. Also Ip user, can you confirm/deny that you are responsible for the edits to the Proud Boys talk page? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Two wrongs don't make a right, Hemiauchenia. Now please just calm down. Also you spelled significant wrong, it was probably just a typo though. Again, you seemed to abuse your authority slightly and/or respond in unnecessarily extreme words that only act as put-downs. This is not helping. Foxtail286 (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Frankly given Hemiauchenia's history of harassment, following me around, verbal abuse, as well as his username I suspect that the user is a teenager, which may explain some of it, however nevertheless I really admire your restraint in dealing and with trying to reason with him. I recommend that you ignore him as I now do. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do want to note, in a non-threatening and non-abusive way, that calling a virus a China Virus is kind of offensive to the many, many Chinese readers out there, even if some (somewhat racist) US sources called it that. You can list it under alternate names in a non-pushy manner, but don't try to insert it in multiple points in the article where SARS-CoV-2 would suffice. Please don't lunge at me just because of my opinion, just don't do it again. Foxtail286 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I've interacted with you before, and I'm certainly not interested in lunging at anyone. I've never made an argument for multiple insertions; just a single listing among the formal names that are seeing use, as it is seeing wide and notable usage. And yes it is indeed offensive, but a lot of things on Wikipedia are offensive to some. That is the nature of an encyclopedia. I also want to point out that it has strong precedent (Spanish Flu, West Nile Virus, Ebola, and so on) and that not everyone using it holds malice. To a lot of people, it is simply a normal name. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You have a point. Let's make a compromise. So, you are allowed to list "the China Virus" under alternate names, but not replacing SARS-COV-2 with it. We can talk about facts, but we have to learn from our racist past. Do you agree? Foxtail286 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you stop the WP:HOUNDING (given your prior lack of editing history on chess or BLP topics), and drop the lecturing given further POV edits such as this, for which you were summarily blocked so soon into your editing (~100 edits). Look at this gem at being loose with the order of magnitude of numbers–millions of Black/African Chinese in places like Guangdong, and millions of White Chinese across the country. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As you know, your blanket removal of the location from those articles is not confined to just chess and BLP topics. No one is hounding you, but it does seem that you are trying to intimidate me for challenging your edit. Considering that you've been blocked multiple times, including for over a week, and have a history of intimidation, I recommend you stick to the substance of the arguments rather than continuing on that path, so that this can be discussed productively. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a transparently poor attempt at false equivalency, equating a WP:NPA block over throwing insults at an edit-warring IP (that came 5+ years into my tenure) with an edit-warring one that occurred less than 10 months into yours (considering the date of first edit), not to mention being considered by others to possibly be a WP:NOTHERE user shortly after that block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing and "reprehensible behavior", blocked for over a week again for personal attacks, blocked yet another week for personal attacks, and have a history of flimsy intimidation whenever your POV pushing is challenged by other editors. You've accumulated quite the "impressive" history, lol. It seems that you are attempting to intimidate me because one of your edits was challenged, which can be seen as a continuation of this pattern of behavior of yours. I recommend you stop. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have asked MarkH21, in neutral terms, to comment on your selective interpretation of the threads. As to your nonsense claim of "intimidation", I have not A) threatened to or even suggested I would take you to an Administrative noticeboard, B) given you a warning template (although the un-evidenced whenever your POV pushing is a textbook personal attack). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Rather than WP:CANVASSING a like-minded editor, you should be taking this to talk. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Argh! no, no, no ...

" It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. " NO! I go thru this with so many students. Nationality=Ethnicity, NOT citizenship. Only those recognized as ethnically Chinese (typically those around the heart of Yellow River China) are "Chinese." Han Chinese is the largest grouping. There is no way I can ever be a Persian - I can become a citizen of Iran, but I remain English in my ethnicity/nationality. Please review "nation-state" and so on. There's been a lot of sloppy, "politically correct" nonsense in many schools of late, and this sort of sloppy talk will drive a historian or linguist mad. "race" doesn't play a part here - the non-scientific, but social, definition would be "Mongoloid" but as so many nationalities are part of this, it's useless in discussing ethnicity. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.197 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality has absolutely nothing to do ethnicity. Nationality is a legal construct, that is decided by law. There are Chinese people of all races. You should not be erasing those people. Furthermore, (Han) Chinese is also an ethnicity, but ethnicity is decided by shared culture/traditions/language, and not blood. For example Borris Johnson and Vladimur Putin are of the same race, but of different ethnicities. Although minorities, there are Black Chinese and White Chinese who, for example, are both legally and culturally (Han) Chinese. If you have students, I fear you are doing them a great disservice, and are not doing your job. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Alert

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 - MrX 🖋 12:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A thought

Hi, it occurred to me that if the disambig page met the deletionists' concerns half-way, the more moderate crowd at AfD would be less motivated to go for the kill.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you.

WHO

Why did you remove well-sourced content and claim that the "source does not support this claim"? The content you removed was "On 10 January, the WHO began urging precautions due to a strong possibility of human-to-human transmission" and the source says "But WHO officials also told their counterparts in technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, and briefed the press on 14 January, that human-to-human transmission was a strong possibility given the experience of past coronavirus epidemics and urged suitable precautions." Prolog (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the source and did not see that, and would not assume the WHO to so boldly contradict themselves. Good catch. I've revised the inclusion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note that your use of the tweet as a primary source is not in line with WP:PRIMARY. The tweet does not say "repeated", "misleading" or that this constitutes the "Chinese stance". In fact, it clearly says "preliminary investigations". Also, you again removed the information about the 10 and 11 January briefings. Unlike the tweet, these are official documents delivered to nations. Prolog (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Per WP:Twitter-EL "a specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages". The WHO's official account indeed meets that criteria. I've kept your current wording, which I think works well, but if you feel that we should mention the 10th and 11th as well which may be redundant, feel free. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Which "several quotes related to the controversy", as you said in your edit summary, did my edit remove? WP:Twitter-EL is part of the guideline on external links. WP:PRIMARY is part of a core content policy. A link to the tweet or proper use of it as a primary source is fine, but adding any sort of personal analysis is not. Prolog (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Quotes by Anne Schuchat and David Heymann. And pointing out that denying human to human transmission was misleading is not personal analysis. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The quotes are there, and unaltered, in the second paragraph. The opinions that human-to-human transmission was denied and that the tweet was misleading are your personal remarks. Per WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Prolog (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:OR was ever intended for easy to prove, overwhelmingly common sense. To show that such a statement from the WHO was misleading, one simply has to cite that human to human transmission is indeed true, or even citing the WHO's contradictory behavior on the same day would suffice. As for the quotes, it seems I was mistaken. Apologies. I actually thought that you removed that entire first paragraph. That's why I added your background context back in the subsequent edit, after reverting to "restore" the lost paragraph. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of the AN3 noticeboard and disruptive editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per the result of a complaint you filed at WP:AN3. Be aware that you can be blocked from the entire topic of Covid-19 under WP:GS/COVID19 if you continue to waste people's time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)