User talk:MINQI

Welcome!

Hello, MINQI!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at User talk:Longway22, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fumikas Sagisavas:

1.Tell me what I have done at User talk:Longway22.

2.Tell me which my exact edit breaches an WP:AGF when User:Longway22 continus attacking me personally and illustrating his point as more places as he can.

3.Do you know "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism).…Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." is written in "Wikipedia:Assume good faith"?

4.I have assumed enough good faith to warn him with {{subst:uw-vandalism2|page}}/{{subst:uw-chat1|Talk:Article}} and just reported his behaviour to WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV. Which is a sharp contrast to your doings.

5.It's at least your third time(first time in en.wiki) assument bad faith to me. MINQI (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Posting a user talk page notice about a non-existent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is disruptive. Please don't do this unless you actually intend to file a report. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric, sorry but if he simply undoes my edit and ignores the legitimacy in my edit again(like diff), I will have no choice but report what has happened. By the way, thank you for the remind. MINQI (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MINQI, I got a similar edit and reversion you received this warning. If something has been posted, please let me know. If you want to talk through an issue, I'm happy to try and do that. We can always request a WP:Third opinion too if you're up for that Superb Owl (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I have replied at that page. Please do not simply undo other's edition,because most edition is not without any reason or no any goods. You can do like add or move it back manually not just click "undo". Have a nice Sunday. MINQI (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

@MINQI, if you haven't had a chance already, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources - this is how we determine whether the information is reliable and whether it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia.
This is why your edits continue to get reverted, because they lack reliable sources to support their inclusion. Superb Owl (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl If you do not understand Chinese please remember it's not my problem. Please follow WP:RSUE,WP:BIASED andWP:NEWSORG. Two of them just appear in the link you gived. By the way, please show me the rule from Wikipedia, the one clearly showed that, none of state media is Reliable sources. MINQI (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not chinese, the issue is that state media is unlikely to be a reliable source for information or notability. Please see Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources#News media. Also, please link to the talk page consensus that you keep citing. Superb Owl (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl Sorry but have you ever readed the link you gived?

"

State-associated or state-controlled news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News have also been described as propaganda outlets for the government.However, such sources may be reliable for determining the official positions of their sponsoring governments. Similarly, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other US state media sources may also be unreliable as to facts, as they have been described as propaganda, but may be reliable regarding the official position of the United States.

"

That clearly showed you are wrong. Or you means that, what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China at a briefing said is not the official position of Chinese government? By the way pls show me the link or Page(discussion), the one shows clearly that, none state media or these two resources(I gived) are not reliable sources.

LINK TO Talk-P, the one you have attended. MINQI (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MINQI 1) please read WP:Civility - telling users they are wrong could be considered inflammatory.
2) That is not contested, the question is whether the official position of the CCP is notable for this article (that would require coverage by a reliable secondary source). I doubt that it is notable.
3) The link you provided showed two users disagreeing (not to mention a third user on the article space) with its inclusion and only one banned user and yourself agreeing. Per WP:ONUS, it does not merit inclusion without consensus (which continues to be against inclusion). Superb Owl (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl

1.This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. I have given min. 3 Rule to provie why this message should be taken in that page, but you are always avoding the points.

2.You still have not given any link or Page(discussion), the one shows clearly that, none state media or these two resources(I gived) are not reliable sources.“Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased.”

3.None of you three provied your points are correct.Just repeated These resources are "NOT RS/non-primary source needed in your opinion". According to your definition, please tell me which chinese source is not state media? MINQI (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another reminder to please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and stop accusing other editors of prejudice Superb Owl (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging in further discussion of these points on this page, since this discussion belongs on that article talk page Superb Owl (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree MINQI (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More guidlines on civility and discussion conduct

I recommend reviewing WP:CIVILITY, WP:Advice for hotheads, WP:BLUDGEONING, and Wikipedia:NPOV given the history of your edits on Transnational repression and List of state media by Country.
Your edits seems to be approaching Tendentious editing so please review these guidelines Superb Owl (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl:You really should do that yourself. Especially Wikipedia:NPOV. MINQI (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:ONUS which says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You are the only editor trying to add this information into these articles without consensus and have been reverted by other editors including by @User:NoonIcarus here and @Amigao here. Superb Owl (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meatpuppetry accusation

Hi MINQI, regarding the accusation in Special:Diff/1259192496, I think that's quite unlikely but if you have evidence beyond "two users prefer the same revision" or similar, please provide it at WP:SPI (or User:Arbitration Committee in case it's non-public evidence). If there is no evidence, please avoid making such accusations, as they just unnecessarily heat up the atmosphere in such a dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Thank you for your remind but it has matched at least 3 sign in WP:MUEW. And as a senior editor it should be avoided. MINQI (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't read essays, except for WP:DISCFAIL, one of the few useful essays on Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]