User talk:Thepat
August 2018[edit]
Hello, I'm Matthew hk. I noticed that you recently removed content from Taishan Nuclear Power Plant without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Matthew_hk tc 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Matthew hk- Sorry if I made a mistake. It was writen that connection to the grid should occur in July, but the plant has been connected in June, this is why I deleted the sentence. The reason seemed obvious to me , but I was wrong! Thepat , 14 August 2018 (dont know how to sign with my ipad :-( )
—Preceding undated comment added 23:18 13 August 2018 (UTC)
July 2020[edit]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hong Kong. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Hong Kong, you may be blocked from editing. If a claim is not in the source, you cannot add it. Your edit had the implication that the concept of One country, two systems would cease to hold. The NYT source does not mention the Sino-British Joint Declaration or One country, two systems at all CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi CaradhrasAiguo, sorry but it is not original research or novel syntheses, refer to https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/07/02/chinas-draconian-security-law-for-hong-kong-buries-one-country-two-systems . Is "The economist" a reliable source? Furthermore, despite your comment, "Medium" seems to be a reliable source, refer to article Hong Kong national security law --Thepat (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Even with those sources that explicitly reference One Country, Two Systems, it is unacceptable to present them in Wikipedia's voice, and as the longer-term implementation and effects of the NSL are yet to be seen, a violation of WP:RECENT and WP:LEDE to place in the lede. The criticisms, many made in bad-faith, belong at Hong Kong national security law. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- In this article you may read " The law criminalises acts that were previously considered protected speech under Hong Kong law and establishes the Office for Safeguarding National Sécurité of the CPG in the HKSAR, an investigative office under Central People's Government authority immune from HKSAR jurisdiction. The United Kingdom considers the law to be a serious violation of the Joint Declaration." Do you agree with this comment and are the related sources reliable?--Thepat (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Even if one were to agree with the unhinged UK government (Johnson ministry), it is WP:UNDUE to treat their viewpoint on the NSL as authoritative. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- In this article you may read " The law criminalises acts that were previously considered protected speech under Hong Kong law and establishes the Office for Safeguarding National Sécurité of the CPG in the HKSAR, an investigative office under Central People's Government authority immune from HKSAR jurisdiction. The United Kingdom considers the law to be a serious violation of the Joint Declaration." Do you agree with this comment and are the related sources reliable?--Thepat (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Even with those sources that explicitly reference One Country, Two Systems, it is unacceptable to present them in Wikipedia's voice, and as the longer-term implementation and effects of the NSL are yet to be seen, a violation of WP:RECENT and WP:LEDE to place in the lede. The criticisms, many made in bad-faith, belong at Hong Kong national security law. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)