User talk:Akira CA

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Akira CA! Thank you for your contributions. I am Zanhe and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Zanhe (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your GA nomination of Shanghai
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shanghai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobbychan193 -- Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ningbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ningbonese ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ningbo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ningbo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Xinjiang railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aksu ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Southern_Xinjiang_railway check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Southern_Xinjiang_railway?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"Mainland" China
There is no state of "Mainland China", please see talk page before further changes. There is a manual of style for this already WP:NC-CN.  Krazytea  (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the consensus was China (mainland), not China with asterisk. Akira CA (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in WP:NC-CN it states that "Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as 'China, except Hong Kong' is unworkable." Since Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are all presented in the template, "Mainland China" is considered acceptable here. Furthermore, "China" is not acceptable here because "In many cases 'China' can be used to refer to the modern state officially known as the 'People's Republic of China'", which includes the two SARs. Akira CA (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And Taiwan. Taiwan is not considered "mainland" even to China, and thus this also must be distinguished as well. Admanny (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have this discussion re-started for the third time on Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data, please demonstrate why this is such an exception circumstance that this outbreak page alone requires Mainland, mainland, (mainland). Such an entity does not exist and is a differentiating statement. Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts.  Krazytea  (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have requested some assistance in determining this dispute. Would you be willing to provide comment at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you so much!  Krazytea  (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO
Hey. Regarding the edits you've made to refine the contested entry to make them more suitable to their source material, which the other editor wasn't even trying, I've reversed them nonetheless because the issue is that the content of them doesn't merit inclusion, not just that the WP:OR phrasing you've fixed wasn't accurate to what was said by the RS.

An opinion by a journalist from a single RS isn't exactly appropriate in terms of WP:DUE to carry the weight of the charge, even with WP:ALLEGED, and especially not at the front of the section paragraph. While the criticism of the WHO's PHEIC timing could stand, it doesn't match the rest of the section which is about the agency's supposed praise and defense of the Chinese response. which I've advocated for does have merit and works as the section opener because it sums up the WHO's position in relation to the criticism that follows including both the scrutiny and defence by other experts, and is backed by RS that describe its role as being in a diplomatic act like the Guardian and the Jakarta Post articles. Best. Sleath56 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For this: "The WHO have received criticism for their delayed declaration of the outbreak as a global emergency, according to an opinion published on the National Post by Terry Glavin."
 * The passage of: "The WHO's handling of the epidemic has come under criticism amidst what has been described as the agency's "diplomatic balancing act" between "China and China's critics." This has included scrutiny of the relationship between the agency and Chinese authorities"


 * Yes you're right. I miss the point that criticism on the delayed PHEIC is essentially irrelevant to the rest of the section. Akira CA (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the understanding! It seems like the other editor has decided to reimpose the same entry again, 1, without providing an edit summary or responding the Talk thread here 2, I've already restored it once, would you mind recovering the original passage this time? Best. Sleath56 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather than keep reverting, probably keep an eye on WP:3RR and report edit warring. I will probably not engage in this anymore and start contributing to other sections of the article. Akira CA (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I respect that. Nonetheless, as the issue is persisting, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak#Deciding_the_opening_paragraph_of_the_WHO_section I've opened a Talk thread on it.] You're still welcome to leave a comment there, supporting whichever proposal, if you wish. Sleath56 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shanghai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IFLA ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Shanghai check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Shanghai?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Pages moves to "and by territory"
I see you have been moving a lot of pages just now. Is that really such a good idea? Is it so important that some of those pages also list territories and not just countries? I much prefer the shorter original titles. KarlFrei (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed they are NPOV but rather redundant, so I stopped. Feel free to revert the moves if you want. It is probably better to put "territories" in the first sentence with boldness/in the table instead of in the title. Though there are plenty of examples indicating that either way is acceptable. -- Akira 😼 CA  11:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored most of them. -- Akira 😼 CA  12:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please ask for administrator help to move a page you can't move yourself, rather than doing a cut-paste like you did at List of countries by renewable electricity production. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK -- Akira 😼 CA  23:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
Your recent editing history at High-speed rail in China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ythlev (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ythlev (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page misunderstanding
Hi Akira CA you left a message on my talk page claiming that I and another editor had "As what you and another editor have done in the quote box of my comment. This is a violation of WP:TALKO, thank you." however after reviewing the edit history it appears that you yourself made the edit which you claim violates WP:TALKO. It wasn't either of us for messed up the signature placement, it was you buddy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Dude you seems completely unaware what's happening there, that's a quote box and what I added is a quote of PE Fans from ANI. Even what PE Fans added later  is still his own quote from ANI. But what you add is not a quote. I need to sign at the end because the quote box is still a part of my comment  (and can't violate WP:TALKO myself). That's also not a part of the conversation so you cannot comment within it, it's a quote buddy. --  Akira 😼 CA  23:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Copying and pasting seems to be what got you in trouble in the first place here so why do it again? This is nearly identical (errors and all) to what you put on my talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Except the definition of "quote" I don't see any errors here, I surely can't violate WP:TALKO in my own comment. -- Akira 😼 CA  23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shanghai
The article Shanghai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shanghai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobbychan193 -- Bobbychan193 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

GAR Notice
Shanghai has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)