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)

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)

Wrong. Sigh. 50.111.19.34 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2021 (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.

- 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)

NY Times source

I read the NYT source cited, and the closest it comes to verifying the previous wording still falls well short: For online critics of the government's responses, which at times have been slow or seemingly random. This is not a statement of fact by the author or the paper, and no reasonable person would conclude it is. You also have no reason to remove the undisputed date on which the WHO China Country Office notified the WHO at large of the cluster of cases. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The NY times source isn't about other sources. It directly details the issue at hand, which is why the status quo had it written that way, and why the change describe it as a secondary secondary source seems strange. As for as the date, it was uncited and is ultimately redundant when looking at the previous sentence. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The date of notification is literally the first phrase of the added source. There is no way you could have overlooked that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That source wasn't added, it was already present. In any case I'm fine with that sentence, but not the other parts. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No it was added by Acalycine, all that was required was for you to view the next edit. Stop arguing semantics while omitting necessary details. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case that's good. The NYT source by and large directly describes what happens though. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, it never presents the "slow response" claim as fact, rather it attributes to the quoted person making the claim. Otherwise, by now, you would have produced quotes demonstrating that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote you provided sufficiently proves the point by itself. Lets take a look at it: For online critics of the government’s responses, which at times have been slow or seemingly random, the crisis has prompted a rethinking of the grand trade-off with the party, in which the people have surrendered individual rights for the promise of stability and prosperity.

First of all they're talking about whistleblowers, and second of all the middle clause "which at times have been slow or seemingly random" is not an attribution to the online critics. That is context being added directly by the NY Times. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Weibo users are by and large not whistleblowers, that is absurd. For that quote, it is not clear what level of government the NYT is referring to, and the at times qualification, again, is another limiter, not supportive of your version. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote makes clear that this is something that the NY Times said, and not something that the NY Times said about whistleblowers or the media saying it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

How did the sentence about formal notification of the WHO not follow the WHO source? Was this a mistake? Also, I changed 'admitted' as it is very much not WP:NPOV. Acalycine (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The WHO notification line is fine. You changed Delayed and controversial responses by the Wuhan and Hubei authorities, which follows the NY Times source, to Public and media criticism has labelled responses by the Wuhan and Hubei authorities which does not follow the source. The NY Times directly says that the Wuhan response was slow, not that other sources said it was slow. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's in-text attribution. Stating an obviously-controversial claim (i.e. labelling the response as 'delayed') as a matter of fact is not NPOV. Even so, I'm not sure why you would outright revert instead of manually editing the parts you dispute. not that other sources said it was slow. - I'm not sure what you mean here, are you implying that my revision erroneously implies WHO is a source for the slowness claim? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not an in-text attribution. It's bias and editorializing where you attempt to take a side and downplay basic facts. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Important notice

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.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhD^v2.0 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Symphony Regalia. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hi Symphony Regalia! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at COVID-19 pandemic in Senegal that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)