User talk:Hongkongpenang

October 2023

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Li Shifeng, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charlie Kirk. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The New York Times is a reliable source. If you feel there's a reason to dispute it, please take it to the article's talk page. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/23/charlie-kirk-rnc-ronna-mcdaniel-harmeet-dhillon/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-post-media-bias#:~:text=The%20Washington%20Post%20fact%20check,left%2C%20center%2C%20and%20right.

The source used was the Washington Post. Washington post was independently reviewed as a LEFT LEANING source. How about using a NEUTRAL source. See, here's the thing with you people trying to put up a false narrative.

1. The source is paywalled disabling independent review of the actual source itself.

2. The source provided has contradicted your claim about bombings in Donetsk perpetrated by the Ukrainian army.

3. Yes he has spouted Russian propaganda, of which this simply ISN'T.

4. Where is your counter source?

This is utterly repulsive and disgusting behaviour from yourself. Hongkongpenang (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, read the wrong comment, it was the New York Times indeed, which is still strongly left leaning:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias#:~:text=The%20bias%20meter%20value%20for,the%20furthest%20%22Right%22%20value.&text=How%20we%20determined%20this%20rating,Independent%20Review

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/technology/russia-american-far-right-ukraine.html

Utterly laughable, this makes your case even worse, it's even more biased than Washington Post. Furthermore also hid behind a paywall! What misleading claims?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians

Is the HRW not reliable? More reliable than a single author with political bias, rather than an international investigative committee?

You're an absolute disgrace to the open source information world. Unable to do coherent and valid research. Hongkongpenang (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? Don't know what's going on here.

Hi, it's me.

I don't know what's going on here, but you're right that it wasn't you who reverted the change. It was this person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PrincessPersnickety

Anyway, calling a source biased isn't worth anything in source analysis, especially not by calling it left or right leaning.

Do it more case by case by considering whether regardless of the politics of the source we can believe the claims presented.

For example, newspaper A might usually be perfectly neutral and reliable, but an article of theirs might have the extra context that it was written by a guest editor with a reputation for making things up, which has definitely happened in the past.

Besides, I don't think newspapers are good sources unless you trust the particular journalists doing their own investigation.

The source you mentioned is Human Rights Watch itself, which makes your source reliable!

Unlike the kind of sources I personally hate, which are just some news article that says something happened without providing information, which to me feels the same as practically making it up.

Yeah, um, I'm just saying calling something biased doesn't mean much, but you can still offer up valid reasons for why we should trust particular sources or not.

Like calm down though. You're making sense, but then all of a sudden you go off on a tangent about "yous" and "theys" and left-leaning bias.

In general, if a source is biased, the best way to prove that is to poke holes in its narrative, because just calling it biased doesn't mean much.

You calling somebody utterly repulsive doesn't help your case much though.

Bye! Taiyaki Schizo (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/donbas-we-re-used-to-shelling/

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/07/un-report-2014-16-killings-ukraine-highlights-rampant-impunity

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/eastern-ukraine-both-sides-responsible-indiscriminate-attacks/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians

There's hundreds of articles by international investigators, yet this politically motivated person is clearly just reverting it because of their political agenda.

Look at their edit history, they're clearly left leaning. I hate both sides of the political spectrum, but what's the point in upholding a clearly false narrative. The source they used got their information from a Ukrainian defence spokesperson, do you really think they'd admit to war crimes?

It's an utter embarrassment how Wikipedia allows these politically motivated people to continue to edit Wikipedia and spread false information. Hongkongpenang (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, someone being left or right leaning isn't what makes their arguament invalid, and using that makes you come off as a child.

What I was trying to explain was that the problem isn't necessarily the bias of a source, but it's reliability.

Regardless of the fact that the Ukrainian Defence spokesperson would obviously deny a war crime, if he for example had provided evidence alongside his claim that would make it credible, regardless of the "bias".

One of the first things they teach us in history is that when evaluating sources you can't just go "It's biased!" because that doesn't actually mean anything.

You know the whole thing about even a broken clock being right twice a day?

So, what worth is a source that just says something without evidence?

Well, even those are worth something. Very often on Wikipedia, you could say something like:

"In 2015, a convoy was fired on by artillery, killing 15. [Source that shows dead bodies] Both Russian and Ukranian defence ministries denied responsibility. [Sources from both sides]"

Got to eat now, so can't be bothered, but even a "biased" source has some value, but you should be able to prove that it's not helpful in a particular case, not just go "It's biased!".

I think what you should do is point out that the source he'd given are not good enough to disprove war crimes, and so can only be used to highlight the Ukrainian response.

Remember, even what both sides said, regardless of if it's true or not, is still something worth highlighting, but they are making the mistake of assuming it reflects the truth, which isn't always the case.

Hope that made more sense than last time. Taiyaki Schizo (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kento Momota

Can I know why you kept adding the unsourced liner back into the article? I believed you should know by now that its a clear breached of the Wiki BLP policy. Please back that statement with reliable sources. If not, it will be removed. Oahdi (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive referenced it from the 2024 Thomas Cup Japan Vs Chinese taipei. Steen and Gill say he is one of the greatest in badminton mens singles history, I referenced it yet you deleted it, stop being such a sour grape. Hongkongpenang (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Record against selected opponents

Hi Hongkongpenang. i see that u added some badminton players to Shi Yuqi Record against selected opponents section. But, some name tht u added did not follow the inclusion criteria. Please read the "Record against selected opponents section" description carefully. Thank you.. Stvbastian (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Li Shifeng article: 1) In the description said: "Record against Year-end Finals finalists, World Championships semi-finalists, and Olympic quarter-finalists. Accurate as of 23 April 2024." Are u sure Li Shifeng h2h vs Lakshya Sen per 23 April 2024 is 3-7? I check the TS, and per 23 April 2024 said that their h2h is 3-6. 2). Lee Zii Jia should be removed from the table. 3) Shi Yuqi name in the table should follow the Wikipedia name. So, next time please use your sandbox before publish ur editing in Wikipedia. You'll give wrong information to Wikipedia readers. And, please correcting ur edits in other articles that did not follow the rules. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its not "per 23 April" it's accurate as of 23 April, check bwf tournament software, it's 3-7. Hongkongpenang (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3-7 if the Thomas Result was included (so how come u said accurate as of 23 April 2024, but u already add the results for their match in the Thomas Cup that was held in May?). That's why, i told you over and over, don't give wrong information to Wikipedia readers.. Stvbastian (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Learn some basic english you utter moron.

Accurate as of 23 April 2024 means its accurate from then and onwards you utter idiot. Hongkongpenang (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its up to you if you want to change the dates, if not I will, but bloody hell, learn some fucking English before you edit on English wikipedia you brainless pompous fuck Hongkongpenang (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather ironic from someone who chronically fails to use proper punctuation. Ravenswing 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm Stvbastian. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.