User talk:Jargo Nautilus/Archive 2

Repeated removal of a talk page discussion
Regarding your repeated unexplained removals at Talk:Uyghur genocide: although there was pointyness and frustration in this section's original post, the editor is still asking questions in good faith (including something about this article specifically).Removing unrelated or rambling comments can be appropriate per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA, but keep in mind the guidelines at WP:TPO before repeatedly removing or rearranging talk page comments. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His edits were not made in good faith. How is the title "Wow, so wikipedia is officially a western state media mouthpiece now?" at all in good faith? He's essentially decided to waltz over here and claim that this entire article is fake news. As far as I can tell, he has had no previous involvement in this article. He hasn't provided any evidence for his claims, nor has he even made any specific claims aside from "it's all BS". If he had at least made one specific argument about the falseness of one specific point in the article, then maybe his comments could have been considered honest and genuine. Instead, he's gone on some bizarre rant about how he has "actual evidence" the bayonet was invented in China and that the (bayonet) article has currently become "so politically charged". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously there is a strong POV there, and I agree that this title is probably not acceptable. On the other hand, this is a new user has also asked legitimate questions (e.g. what is "reliable published sources" to you and why is this page claiming that Uyghur numbers are dropping when it increased by 2 million from 2010 to 2015?) and we still have to assume good faith – it's part of one of the five basic pillars of Wikipedia. Yes, the editor may well not come back with reliable sources, but they might also come back with a reliable source for their specific claims after being informed about how Wikipedia works.At the very least, an explanation for removal (e.g. one of the WP:TPNO examples) and adherence to WP:TPO is necessary.Thanks by the way, for your contributions to this area of the encyclopedia! — MarkH21talk 00:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the comments but I've left my own remark. The guy is actually so unclear and deluded about his arguments and intentions that he's speaking in the first person plural but hasn't actually explained who "we" is. For all I know, "we" could be the Martians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, presumably, he's Chinese, because he's specifically stated that there's a lot of "Sinophobia" in this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If he really is Chinese, then his statement about being "outnumbered" is dubious... Doesn't China have a population of over 1.4 billion? It's the most populous country on Earth, lmao. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed the editor meant that their point of view will be outnumbered in the Wikipedia community, whether by the editors they call racist idiots, or perhaps by viewpoints from Western media. I don't know what they mean though, and I won't spend too much time thinking about those parts of their comments... — MarkH21talk 01:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Kinmen edits
Pretty much any published source, and certianly any media source, is going to use "(mainland) China and Taiwan" as opposed to "PRC and ROC." What is this usage intended to suggest? That both governments are equally legitimate rulers of China? 5440orSleep (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that there can only be "One China" is not a universal truth. Historically, there were dozens of German states, dozens of Italian states, etc. before they unified. Even in the history of China there were several periods during which there were multiple Chinese states. The country "Republic of China" and the country "People's Republic of China" are two distinct countries that possess Chinese heritage. They both claim to be the sole legitimate ruler of China, but this is, as I've said, not a universal truth, and merely a political idea that they made up. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of the usage of "PRC and ROC" rather than "China and Taiwan" (in fact, I've used both), the names "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" are in fact the official names of those two respective countries. The terminology "Fujian Province (PRC)" and "Fujian Province (ROC)" seems more appropriate than the terminology "Fujian Province (China)" and "Fujian Province (Taiwan)", although these terminologies more-or-less mean the same thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To refer to Taiwan as "China" may confuse readers. To use abbreviations that hardly common in published material doesn't solve the problem. I'm sure most readers can figure it out anyway. But what is the upside? In addition, I have to question whether comparisons of Taiwan's Fujian Province and China's Fujian Province belong in the lead of an article about Kinmen. The Foreign Ministry's yearbook has a detailed description of Taiwanese territory, but nothing about Fujian Province. So the issue may be obscure. 5440orSleep (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed the introduction to refer to PRC China exclusively as "China". Meanwhile, Taiwan is referred to mostly as "Taiwan" aside from the reference to Fujian (ROC). Please bear in mind that the usage of "Taiwan" as an alternative/common name for the Republic of China (ROC) is an example of pars pro toto. Taiwan comprises 99% of the territory of the ROC. However, strictly speaking, Kinmen and Matsu are not parts of Taiwan but are rather parts of Fujian, China. In essence, Kinmen and Matsu are parts of China that Taiwan has effectively been occupying (and has effectively annexed) since 1949. Obviously, the situation is more complex than this... a government-in-exile, the ROC, fled to Taiwan, took over Taiwan, and also retained control over Kinmen and Matsu, which have always been parts of its original territory. In effect, since the ROC controls Kinmen and Matsu, it still controls some very very tiny parts of China. Taiwan is not legally part of China; it's a separate territory, although it is widely considered to be part of "Greater China". In the present day, the government of Taiwan is pro-independence, but it hasn't yet declared the ROC state invalid; on the contrary, it seems to view the ROC and Taiwan as one and the same, as seen in the ideology "The Republic of China is Taiwan". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote some comments on all of this here. 5440orSleep (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the original state of the article (i.e. before my edits) was poorly explained for a general audience. The way I rewrote the introduction was supposed to make it easier to understand for non-experts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
Discussing Nathan Rich's personal life without reference to specific improvements to the article is a violation of the policy linked to in the header above. Knock it off. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that he's an unreliable source. The entire conversation that started with his YouTube video should be shut down. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As at least one other person has noted, his reliability isn't relevant (because no one is proposing his video be cited here), and is separate from this egregious section you opened. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out, using Nathan Rich as a "conversation starter" is disingenuous. Why are we continuing to drag out a conversation that was started by such a dubious source? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone is deleting others' replies and messing up this Talk page
This user I only made 2 edits yesterday, but this guy has made 47 edits since my last edit! Somebody please help me deal with this problem. I don't know how to deal with this, and I don't want to waste more time on this today! Some last words to, I'll certainly be willing to have a real discussion with you: If you can achieve these 2 things above, I believe you're well behaving. But before we can start a real discussion, there's one more thing: You need to at least try to spend the same time listening and saying your own point. Does that sound fair to you? Look at how many edits you have done and how many I have. --In wkpd (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted part of my reply ( This was my full reply.)
 * Deleted a bunch of previous replies (including some of himself's), starting with removing a Collapse Template on his previous speech (note that the Collapse template was not added by me). See the before and now (before, now), he deleted the whole section (Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?) with other users' speech and his own bad record. And added a new section (Nathan Rich's opinion does not matter) to replace it.
 * 1) Do not delete other users' speech
 * 2) Think through your speech before making it, instead of hiding and deleting afterwards.
 * I deleted the section because the template read "nonsense..." which was done in bad faith. Better to remove the section in its entirety if the other party is unwilling to engage in debate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically, I did not "add a new section". I just renamed the section to convey my argument more directly. Furthermore, if we want to talk about bad records... Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually still stand by my claim that Nathan Rich is a felon. I never rescinded the claim. Nathan Rich is a felon. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also deleted the comment which referenced me without a hyperlink. I only accept references towards my user account if I am directly pinged. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want this point clarified... Another user's comment ceases to be "private property" when it references me personally. When I am not pinged, this indicates that the comment is not intended for my own eyes. Hence, it is defamation. Therefore, it should be deleted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, I haven't defamed you... At least, not yet. Don't tempt me. In any case, stop defaming me. You're the one who can't engage in honest debate, not me. Also, I made "47 edits" mostly as a series of consecutive comments that were grouped up together as one large comment (I made two of these "threads"). I'm active on Twitter and that's how I operate over there. Just a habit. If you'd like, you can actually read my comments... I provided some analysis that I think is actually quite relevant to this entire discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't intend to "have a discussion" with you. My intention is to put forward my arguments for a public audience. If you want to "have a discussion" with me, then you should do so on my own talk page. I honestly couldn't care less about you as an individual. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you have rights to delete my comments on the taiwan talk page
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--In wkpd (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted comments that referenced me personally. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wo bu zhidao ni zai shuo shenme. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for outing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. —valereee (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Jargo, you outed another user. The diff is at Special:Diff/992482083; you won't be able to see it, but maybe that'll jog your memory. We don't out people here. —valereee (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I've found the reason for my block. Recently, in an unrelated case, I posted a message on another user's talk page (Horse Eye's Back) saying "Hi, Jade" and linking to the user JadeEditor's Reddit account, which has a very similar name to their Wikipedia account. To be clear, I wasn't trying to defame Jade. I recognised the user from Reddit and was just saying hello (my own account on Reddit, which Jade has encountered in the past, uses a very similar name to my Wikipedia account as well, so I'm not exactly trying to hide my identity either). Jade co-owns and operates a community on Reddit which currently has 1600 members. I joined the group when it had around 50 members in early 2020. I was an active member of the community earlier this year. I have actually been in real-life contact with one member of the group as recently as November 2020; he is one of my good friends in the present day. I'm not actually an "enemy" of the group or of Jade, or anything like that. I was just saying hello on friendly terms. I think posting Jade's Reddit account link on Horse Eye's Back's talk page got me banned. This sort of makes sense, though I think Valereee was getting the wrong idea that I was somehow trying to defame Jade. I definitely was not trying to defame Jade. We may disagree on some things, though Jade and I are generally on quite civil terms. I generally see Jade as a respectable figure, and I've learnt quite a great deal from the posts that he's made in his Reddit community. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe I am what was considered the "outed user" in this case. I will state for the record that "Jade" is not my real name nor any sort of identifier for me in the real world, and by what I can tell, did not break the rules of outing by acknowledging another anonymous account that I have used on an external third-party website that we ourselves have communicated on off-site, and was not done intentional or malicious intent. So I would like to speak up on Jargo's behalf on this issue and request that the ban be appealed or removed. JadeEditor (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS 38154
 has been declined.

Sorry, no. The talk page disruption was not just having more than one unblock request open. It was the convoluted reasoning without addressing the matter at hand. Gad. You have continued in the same unfocused manner here. You have not addressed the reason for your block on your talk page and you have not done so here.

It does not matter what the outed editor thinks. Bugging them off-Wiki is harassment. The WMF takes dim view of that. I recommend against it.

The only reason to allow you to have talk page access is to allow you to appeal the block, and you can do that via UTRS with far less risk of disruption than if you were doing this on your talk page. Please reread the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks.

Unblock requests should be concise and succinct. You should describe where you went wrong and what you would do right. You will also need to address the behavior that led to that ANI thread in the first place.

Thanks, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 01:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been unblocked. The reason for my block was unrelated to the ANI case. As it turns out, I hadn't actually done anything explicitly wrong. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your UTRS Account
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 01:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan has an RFC
Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

‪Wikipedia Administrators: noticeboard incidents
Hi. You tagged me in some notifications but i can't find the discussions they refer to. I keep getting diverted to a page of more recent discussions.


 * "‪Jargo Nautilus‬ mentioned you on ‪Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‬ in "‪Reply by Jargo Nautilus‬". The term "bopomofo" refers to a system of transliteration for Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan/ROC. I am not familiar with its workings, though I've hear..."


 * "Jargo Nautilus‬ mentioned you on ‪Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‬ in "‪Replying to JN & Summary of her harmful behaviours‬". The term "frankly (speaking)" is synonymous with "honestly (speaking)" or "seriously (speaking)". The term "frankly (speaking)" does not at all ind..."

Can you help me find these? Irtapil (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You came from a time machine? This was months ago. In wkpd (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The tags were supposed to be for an ANI case. I initially wrote up my ANI response on a sandbox page, including the tags, before I reposted the comments directly at the ANI case. It seems that the tags on the sandbox page may have notified you to come here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Block removed
In response to UTRS unblock request number 40898, and after consulting the blocking administrator, I have unblocked your account. For convenience of future reference if it is needed, here is a copy of he message I posted to you on UTRS when I accepted your unblock request.

Your latest unblock request does show more of an understanding of the issues that led to the block than you previously showed, and after consulting the blocking administrator I have decided to give you another chance. However, I think it best to warn you to be careful to carefully consider the other matters about which editors have warned you, apart from those that led to this block, because there is a danger that you will be blocked again if you carry on in the same way. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia tried to work by consensus.

JBW (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Advice heeded. I will add that my understanding of the situation is that I was blocked for an entirely separate reason from the apparent commotion that I was causing elsewhere on Wikipedia. However, the administrator who blocked me for this separate reason was the same one who was deliberating about me elsewhere. There may have been a misunderstanding. The fact that I was in trouble for something else (though, I didn't end up being blocked for this trouble) probably caused the administrator to suspect that my behaviour was malicious, which led to me being instantly blocked without much consideration. The offence that I was actually blocked for was not really malicious at all, at least in terms of intent. Originally, I didn't realise that I had been blocked for a separate reason, thinking it was related to the other dispute that I was involved in, which is why I ended up being blocked from my talk page when I tried to appeal my block by alluding to the circumstances of this other dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my most recent block appeal, which was apparently successful, I didn't at all refer to the other dispute since the last time I did so, it caused me to be blocked from my Talk page. I only referred directly to the reason for my block, which was truly invalid, I think, which is probably why my block has been rescinded. However, I do admit that my behaviour throughout the other dispute, which did not actually directly cause my block or result in a block itself, was malicious. With that being said, the behaviour of others was malicious too, and I had no idea how to defend myself against them. Even in defending myself with logical arguments, I was accused of "spamming" and "attacking people". Apparently, the desired outcome of the opposing party was that I would simply capitulate without even attempting to defend myself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was most certainly "baited" into the original dispute. A user who had disagreeing views with me had commented in a new section of an article's Talk page (Talk:Taiwan) that I myself was causing trouble of some kind. That is, they had singled me out and cited my username as an example of a person who needed to be "dealt with", in a context outside any direct conversations that had been occurring between me and that user. As such, I took this tirade as a personal attack against myself, which is why I removed the comment. This removal of a comment is what quickly snowballed into this dispute between me and the other user, leading to the case in ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These events occurred back in late-November to early-December of 2020. I can't remember the events clearly. So, I am just trying to recall what had happened. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for Horn of Africa
Doug Weller talk 10:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dabaqabad (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. It seems that the user has been blocked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

what's going on?
Hi, you tagged me in a long discussion on a sandbox page. User:Jargo Nautilus/sandbox3

I can't understand what's happening because it's kind of out of context?

It related to the Taiwan page, but also parts of a dispute resolution process that i've not seen.

Is it possible to summarise the dispute for me please?

Has it been resolved? what was the resolution? the Taiwan page still has the somewhat surreal intro section.

Irtapil (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a reply to an ANI case in which I was accused of disruptive behaviour. I was blocked for a separate reason (it was invalid) and was unable to respond or react. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was being threatened with a block by another user because they had been trying to change the wording of the Taiwan introduction to "Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China", citing Nathan Rich's video on Taiwan's Wikipedia article (and other stuff?) as evidence, and they had singled me out in the comments, implying that I was one of the troublemakers and needed to be dealt with, so I just removed their comment from the Talk page in protest, so they immediately opened an ANI case against me in order to get me blocked from Wikipedia. I was eventually blocked for a junk reason by the administrator of my ANI case in order to silence me, though I eventually appealed my block several months later when I was able to provide evidence that the block had been unjustified. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The case has not really been resolved. I was unblocked eventually, and the wording in the introduction of the article was never changed to "Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China", but if you look at the comments section of the article, anti-Taiwanese sentiment, mostly instigated by agents of the Chinese government, is still rampant and mostly unchecked. The article is still vandalised regularly. Random "activists" are still being paid to badmouth Taiwan, and dunces are still buying it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've found an interesting thread on Quora. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-anti-Taiwanese-sentiment-much-stronger-than-anti-Japanese-sentiment-on-Zhihu Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, JN, you were not blocked for an "invalid" or "junk" reason, ditto your loss of talk page privileges, and the reason you were unblocked was not because you provided "evidence that the block had been unjustified". Courtesy pings to and . —valereee (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was blocked from my talk page because I didn't know the reason why I was blocked and had been discussing irrelevant facts in my initial appeal. I was specifically told that I was not getting to the point... The reason is that I had no idea what had happened. EDIT: As proof of this, you can just look at some of the comments on this talk page by the other administrators who declined my unblock appeals. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I have been told by another user that the attack against me during my ANI trial, regarding whether I could "discuss Taiwan without being biased" (I can't remember the exact wording, but this was the general gist) was against Wikipedia's rules. The same user said that they had considered defending me but didn't want to get into the line of fire and so ultimately chose not to. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One last thing that I will mention is that certain arguments involved in the "dispute" were comedically ridiculous. One argument presented by the person who opened the ANI case against me was that "a person who reads Wikipedia might get the wrong idea that Taiwan is an independent country, and they might write about this in a presentation at work, and they might lose their job as a result". Firstly, it's not Wikipedia's responsibility whether or not a person loses their job due to something that they shared after reading it on Wikipedia. Secondly, I've never heard of anyone losing their job for proclaiming Taiwanese independence apart from Taiwanese people themselves employed at Chinese businesses. Thirdly, someone who blindly trusts information that they've read on Wikipedia without cross-referencing it elsewhere deserves to be fired on the spot. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that is relevant to whether or not your block was "junk" or "invalid" or whether your unblock was because you somehow proved it was unjustified. —valereee (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the unblocking admin's post to my talk where your unblock request was discussed and which makes it clear that the reason your unblock request was accepted was because you had seemed to indicate you now understood why you'd been blocked and wouldn't be doing it again. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for the long-winded response was that, if I had made some kind of mistake, I could have gotten my block extended for, say, another four months. I was just trying to be as cautious as possible. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also clear that I didn't actually know that I had committed a blockable offence, which means that there was absolutely no intention to behave disruptively (in terms of the act that caused me to be blocked). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I still consider the original ANI case to be unresolved. But I am willing to look past it as long as the other user remains inactive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * JN, pretty much all your posts are long-winded, much much lengthier than necessary. I considered reaching out to you after your talk page access was revoked, as I could see you hadn't intended to out the other editor, but your walls of text and bludgeoning of discussion, which quite honestly I think are the bigger problem with your contributions here, made me decide not to. Literally that unblock request could have said nothing more than, "I understand now why I was blocked, I did it inadvertently and with no malice, I am very sorry, and I promise never to out anyone ever again." Your long unblock request actually worked against you. Both I and the unblocking admin remarked on it.
 * Please start writing much shorter, and stop making multiple replies to posts. If necessary, draft your replies offline, edit them to be as short as possible -- and by as short as possible, I'll tell you that this post of mine I consider fairly lengthy -- and don't post until you are quite sure you've adequately covered your important points. Yes, it'll take longer; it takes time to write short. Longer-than-necessary posts tell other editors, "My time is more important than yours." Multiple long posts in a single discussion are often seen as intentionally disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the clarification. I tend to write long sections of text because I have autism and I had a speech impediment during my childhood. As such, I have always relied more on communicating through text than speech. I am not intentionally trying to be disruptive, but I will try to write shorter text from now on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

what is this?
Copied from User:Jargo_Nautilus/sandbox3. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that you are an agent of the CCP. I don't believe that you are prominent enough to hold such a prestigious position. With that being said, you and I have very different ideas of what "neutrality" on Wikipedia means. It seems that you personally believe that any suggestions that Taiwan is an independent country constitute a breach of neutrality, and this is a point of view that I strongly object to. You have not provided any evidence that promoting awareness of Taiwan's culture and history is pushing propaganda. Personally, I have strong family ties to Taiwan during the period under Japanese rule (disclaimer: strong ties to Taiwan, not to Japan), a few years before the ROC occupied and annexed the island. As such, I understand that Taiwan's history and culture are more complex than just the Cold War and the Chinese Civil War. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My position on hired by CCP: I believe that the official Chinese government position should be respected in most circumstances regarding China itself but not regarding Taiwan. Even then, government documents should always be scrutinised to a certain degree. China can somewhat be trusted to record its own affairs in official print since it actually governs over China (or what some people call "mainland China"). On the other hand, the CCP has no jurisdiction over Taiwan and never has, so they can't be trusted as a source of primary information about Taiwan. This is stating the obvious, but I think it's important to clarify this point. Obviously, since the CCP can't be trusted to provide factual information about Taiwan (primary info, not secondary) on account of the fact that they don't govern the place, this means that the foremost authority on Taiwanese affairs is the ROC government. Formerly, it was the KMT, but these days, there are other political parties in Taiwan, most prominently the DPP. However, since the ROC government is not a member of the United Nations, this leaves a grey area, causing some outside observers to falsely believe that the PRC/CCP (one is the state, whereas the other is the government and leading political party) is the foremost authority on Taiwan when, clearly, the ROC government itself has more official and actual agency over Taiwan than any other geopolitical authority. The idea that the ROC government cannot be trusted as a source of credible information on Taiwan is a logical fallacy, one that is easily disproven by observing the situation on the ground, where it is apparent that the ROC government is the current legitimate government over Taiwan, controlling the entirety of Taiwan's domestic affairs and holding real sovereignty (disregarding theoretical/legal sovereignty) over the entire territory of Taiwan and all of its inhabitants. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for "respect" towards China's point of view, just MENTIONING it. With a prominence proportionate to it's influence in the world outside Wikipedia. Regardless of whether their side of the story is justified or realistic or any other value based judgement, it's very influential. It's utterly bizarre to mention mainland China as "a neighbour to the north west" without mentioning the tense relationship between those neighbours untill several paragraphs later. Irtapil (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the same vein as my preceding response below, your logic here is flawed. China's high level of influence in the real world is not an inherent legitimate reason to place WP:UNDUE weight on their claims in the introduction to Taiwan's Wikipedia article. As far as I know, there is no rule on Wikipedia stipulating that countries with larger populations and more influence in the real world should have their views prioritised over countries with smaller populations and less influence in the real world, in regard to the contents of Wikipedia articles. There is a rule about WP:NOTABILITY, wherein an article subject has to have significant coverage in the real world, in research papers and news articles, etc, in order to be justified in having its own distinct article on Wikipedia. This rule seems irrelevant to the case of Taiwan since it is evident that Taiwan has a prominent role on the world stage in many ways (just not as prominent as the PRC's role), such as in its high-tech industries (especially in the semiconductor industry, where it is the leading country), in its successful battle against COVID-19 (gaining it worldwide recognition), and in various current affairs including the recent 2021 Hualien train derailment (which was prominent enough to be featured on the Wikipedia main page's current affairs segment a few days ago). Overall, Taiwan cannot be considered a non-notable subject, and as such, the views of the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese people should be given the first priority in any article about the country and its people. In fact, if a person were to consider what the "parents of Taiwan" are, then China (including the PRC, the ROC and the now-defunct Qing Empire), Japan (including the Empire of Japan) and the United States can all equally be considered to hold this title. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who was mentioned previously. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it seems that you personally believe that any suggestions that Taiwan is an independent country constitute a breach of neutrality no... not that, it's just misleading to present it as if there are not about a billion people who disagree with that. I can't even get my head around how that helps? Irtapil (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was replying directly to, not to you. Originally, at the Taiwan Talk page, In wkpd was suggesting to change the article introduction to "Taiwan is an autonomous region of China that is recognised as a province of the PRC", paraphrased. I and many other editors strongly opposed this suggestion simply due to the fact that the PRC has never governed Taiwan. It's ridiculous to say that Taiwan is legitimately a province of the PRC since that regime/state has never ruled Taiwan. It can be reasonably said that the PRC claims Taiwan, but it cannot be said that Taiwan is already a province of the PRC. There is no legitimacy to this claim outside of blind nationalism on the part of the PR Chinese. In any case, just because PR China's population is over one billion, that does not give them any extra weight as a sovereign nation in comparison to Taiwan or any other country. What you are suggesting is basically the "tyranny of the majority" or "might makes right". The PRC's large population is not a legitimate reason that we should give WP:UNDUE weight to the PRC's claims in the introduction to the Taiwan article, although there are perhaps other reasons to do so. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * i think i fixed it now… kinda… Irtapil (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You know, I just had a closer look at the Taiwan Wikipedia article's introduction just now, and it seems that the article already places a significant amount of weight on the PRC's claim of sovereignty to Taiwan in paragraph four. Directly quoted: "The political status of Taiwan is contentious. The ROC no longer represents China as a member of the United Nations, after UN members voted in 1971 to recognize the PRC instead. Meanwhile, the ROC continued to claim to be the legitimate representative of China and its territory, although this has been downplayed since its democratization in the 1990s. Taiwan is claimed by the PRC, which refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the ROC. Taiwan maintains official diplomatic relations with 14 out of 193 UN member states and the Holy See, though many others maintain unofficial diplomatic ties with Taiwan through representative offices and institutions that function as de facto embassies and consulates. International organisations in which the PRC participates either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only on a non-state basis under various names. Domestically, the major political contention is between parties favouring eventual Chinese unification and promoting a pan-Chinese identity contrasted with those aspiring to independence and promoting a Taiwanese identity, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal." So, in conclusion, we don't actually need to make any radical changes to the Taiwan Wikipedia article's introduction since paragraph four's contents are sufficient enough at the present time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

but paragraph four is too burried for some of the most important info, it's like people are deliberately trying to bury it, and i honestly cannot fathom why? Irtapil (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on mobile at the moment, and it does seem that all paragraphs after the first paragraph are obscured by the info-box on this platform. With that being said, I think we should be very careful about giving undue weight to a less-legitimate institution. The most legitimate government of Taiwan is the Republic of China, by virtue of the fact that it governs the country /region /territory. The People's Republic of China is less legitimate by virtue of having no real sovereign authority in Taiwan. Regardless of peoples' beliefs and claims, the most important information is that which is tangible... What is happening on the ground? In reality, the People's Republic has never administered Taiwan, so its views are secondary to the Republic's, which has administered Taiwan for decades and continues to do so in the present day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Continuing editing problems
I have come to this page because two editors, separately and independently, have drawn my attention to your gross misrepresentation above of my reason for unblocking your account. As has pointed out above, the block was not "for a junk reason", nor was the unblock because you were "able to provide evidence that the block had been unjustified": on the contrary, part of the reason for unblocking was that I (it now seems mistakenly) thought that you had accepted that the block had been justified. Nor was the block imposed "in order to silence [you]".

Having come to this page for that reason, I saw other things on this page which gave me concern, which led me to follow up history on other pages, and there I saw other things which gave me further concern. I am warning you now that if you continue to edit in ways which ignore all that you have been told about your problematic behaviour then you are likely to be blocked from editing again, possibly with less likelihood this time of being unblocked. I do not propose to give you a full account of what the problems are, because you have already had them explained to you, here, at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and elsewhere, and I don't suppose that my explaining things to you which you have hitherto failed to hear when others have said them will cause you to suddenly see the light if I repeat them. However, the problems include, but are not limited to, the following: exhibiting an intention to promote a point of view, such as your personal view of the government of the People's Republic of China; personal attacks on other editors, including accusing them of malicious intentions without substantiation; generally treating editors with whom you disagree as though you regard Wikipedia as a battleground; misrepresenting what other editors have said or done. All of those are things about which you were warned months ago, but which you have continued to do after being unblocked.

The above is an extended version of the warning I gave you more briefly above, beginning "I think it best to warn you to be careful...", and to which you replied "Advice heeded", but it is clear that you have not heeded it.

My final comment is that I certainly would not have unblocked your account had I known that you would then proceed to make it abundantly clear that you did not understand the reason for the block, and did not accept that the block was justified, or that you would proceed to make personal attacks on the administrator who imposed the block. JBW (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't continuously had editing problems. In fact, recently, I was attacked by an edit-warrior and I chose not to respond. Subsequently, I asked another editor to do something about this edit-warrior, and the edit-warrior was subsequently blocked. My reason for saying that the block against me was for a "junk reason" was that there was very little clarity as to why I was blocked by Valereee. I actually had no idea why I was blocked by Valereee and it took me a while to figure it out. In any case, I had already been inactive for four months since I was blocked from UTRS as well, and there was absolutely zero indication from UTRS concerning when I would be able to file a new appeal. I already accepted Valeree's explanation for my block and subsequent unblock a few days ago. The only reason I haven't deleted my previous comments is that it's against the rules to do so. I have actually retracted my comments if that wasn't clear. I don't think the reason for my block was a "junk reason" anymore. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyen Kim Hong
這個人在Taiwan很重要，請你從「zh:阮金紅 (導演)」的內容翻譯成為English，感謝你！--Lin Cheng-chieh (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Basking in Sunshine After Rain—Videographer Nguyen Kim Hong - Taiwan Panorama
 * Nguyen, Kim Hong (阮金紅) – Women Filmmakers and Transnational China in the Twenty-First Century
 * Nguyen Kim Hong from Vietnamtells the stories of her compatriots through film (2017/06/25)
 * Sorry, I don't think I can help you. I can't read Chinese and I don't know much about this topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Talk page discussion
This user on the China-Lithuania relations Talk page:

1. Verbally insulted other users (while being first and alone on the said Talk page)

2. Edit-warred Talk page

Furthermore, he/she harassed me over messaging for a couple of hours (full record remains on my Talk page).195.135.49.168 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the purpose of creating this section is when a relevant section already exists on your own talk page (honestly, I consider this action to be a form of derailment). After you've already indicated an inability to behave appropriately in your earlier engagements with me, I don't think it's a good look to now be attempting to throw a counter-report towards me. This is basically just reinforcing your unwillingness to resolve the dispute peacefully. If you had reported me earlier, then that would be a different story. Counter-reports rarely work... Believe me, I've tried it before (against that In wkpd guy in the past... that turned out badly, and it's not gonna work for you either). | Also, for the record, even though my behaviour technically counts as edit-warring (WP:WAR), I don't think I surpassed the "three-revert rule" (What edit warring is), whereas, on the other hand, you actually did surpass this rule, so you are actually guiltier than me, according to that rule. The rule states that you can't do three reversions within 24 hours. When analysing the history of that page just from today alone, it basically went: (1) you reverted (2) I reverted (3) you reverted (4) I reverted (5) you reverted. After your third and final reversion, I just abandoned the article entirely and began investigating how to report you to the administrators. So, I stopped after two reversions, and the status quo of the article for the past few hours has been that your version is the one still standing. My original reversion occurred a little while back, outside of the 24-hour period, so it doesn't directly count towards the three-revert rule, I believe. | As for verbally insulting other users, I might have a snarky way of talking, but I don't think I was ever actually verbally abusing anyone in particular. Calling an edit "disingenuous" does not really count as an act of verbal abuse... It was more like a criticism of the actual content of the edit, not the person who made the edit. The distinction between a "content dispute" and a "conduct dispute" is that conduct disputes are typically characterised by the usage of personal attacks, whereas content disputes typically only involve criticism about content that is related directly to the article at hand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Self-reference comments
I am presently waiting for a process to be completed first before pursuing any further actions. Here is a basic summary of my view of the events that have taken place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Background
 * 1) In November, I deleted a series of lengthy unsourced edits that had occurred at the China-Lithuania relations article, which could all be attributed to one user in particular (IP user 93.41.221.219). Immediately upon doing so, I opened up a talk page section (at Talk:China-Lithuania relations) to discuss the deleted edits.
 * 2) A second user (IP user 80.26.154.95) came along and reverted my edits, stating that I was biased.
 * 3) I reverted the reversion, pointing out that the material was unsourced.
 * 4) A third user (IP user 139.47.34.245) came along and reverted my edits again, accusing me of attacking them.
 * 5) A fourth user (Intforce) came along and reverted the third user's reversion, reaffirming that the material was indeed unsourced. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute in question, Part 1
 * 1) The third user, around the time of their edit to the main article, wrote a series of comments in the talk page section that I had opened up (at Talk:China-Lithuania relations). The user accused me of being biased and of attacking them. The user was particularly fixated on the idea of me being biased, so much so that they quoted material from my user page in an attempt to prove that I was biased.
 * 2) The fourth user, Intforce, replied to the third user, reaffirming that the material was indeed unsourced. This was followed by Intforce's reversion over at the main article.
 * 3) I replied on the talk page to the third user, accusing them of rearranging my comments (it was actually Intforce who did this accidentally) and of throwing out a personal attack at me in the form of the material that they had quoted from my user page. I also added some more on-topic replies about the actual reasons for my initial reversions, and some rebuttals against the third user's comments.
 * 4) I fixed my edits that had been rearranged by Intforce and subsequently rescinded my accusation against the third user regarding this matter. I then deleted the material that had been quoted from my talk page and left a "personal attack removed" notice. I also created a talk page for the third user (who didn't have one previously) and informed them that I believed that they had thrown out a personal attack at me, justifying the personal attack's removal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute in question, Part 2
 * 1) A fifth user (IP user 195.135.49.168) arrived two days later and reverted my deletion of the offending material (at Talk:China-Lithuania relations), proclaiming that the offending material should stay in the article because it served the purpose of "exposing" me. This user also accused me of conducting vandalism.
 * 2) I reverted the reversion, accusing both the third user and the fifth user of conducting harassment against me and accusing the fifth user alone of conducting vandalism.
 * 3) The fifth user immediately afterwards (within minutes) reverted my reversion. This was the first instance of a heated edit war since the reversions were occurring in quick succession with one another.
 * 4) I reverted the reversion immediately (within minutes), proclaiming that I was now going to report the incident to the administrators (which I had been tentative to do beforehand since I didn't want to escalate the situation without a good reason).
 * 5) The fifth user again immediately afterwards (within minutes) reverted my reversion, again accusing me of conducting vandalism.
 * 6) From this point, I abandoned the talk page in order to avoid an escalation of the edit war (the fifth user's third and final consecutive reversion is currently standing). At the same time, I contacted a random administrator in order to ask for advice on how to handle the dispute. I also created a talk page for the fifth user (who didn't have one previously) and informed them that I believed that they were escalating the personal attack against me that had originally been conducted by the third user. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute in question, Part 3
 * 1) Roughly at the same time as our edit war on the talk page or shortly afterwards, the fifth user conducted a series of content-based edits over at the main article. There was nothing inherently wrong with these edits, though this was done against a backdrop of accusations of harassment over at the talk page of that very article.
 * 2) For several hours after the edit war, I engaged in a lengthy series of negotiations with the fifth user over at their talk page. I informed them that I was trying to resolve the dispute peacefully, without administrator involvement. I also informed them that my only condition was that the offending material should be removed from the talk page and that I did not intend to attack them personally. The user refused to heed my demands, again reaffirming that the offending material should stay on the talk page to serve the purpose of "exposing" me.
 * 3) Later on, one of the edits by the fifth user over at the article in question China-Lithuania relations was reverted by an administrator (David Gerard) because it cited a deprecated source, the Global Times. David Gerard did not delete the other edits conducted by the fifth user. I have subsequently contacted David Gerard regarding the conduct dispute over at the talk page. I am currently awaiting David Gerard's reply. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes
 * I have personally concluded that the third and fifth users are indeed the same person. Both users can be traced back to roughly the same location via their IP addresses. On the other hand, I am not sure about the statuses of the first and second users. The third user has not been active ever since the original incident of harassment; all subsequent incidents of harassment have involved the fifth user. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk section on my own user page was opened up by the fifth user in an attempt to throw a counter-report at me. I personally don't think this counter-report has any validity to it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of the "background" section above, it should be noted that I added some additional comments to the talk page section (at Talk:China-Lithuania relations) after conducting my second reversion over at the main article. I outlined my reasons for the reversion. I also advised the second user that the talk page section should be utilised to its fullest extent and that edit-warring was disruptive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

Technically speaking, unless the fifth user owns up to also being the third user, for all intents and purposes, these two users can be considered distinct people (even though they probably actually are the same person). Most of the sustained aggression towards me has been conducted by the fifth user, whereas the original incident of harassment against me that occurred at Talk:China-Lithuania relations was conducted by the third user. What this means is that I can basically challenge the third user on the administrators' incidents noticeboard and they probably won't respond, given that the real person behind both accounts is currently, for all intents and purposes, logged into the fifth account rather than the third account. What this also means is that the fifth user cannot defend the third user on the noticeboard because this will directly expose them as a sockpuppeteer, more or less (with IP addresses, it's a bit different compared to registered users). So, basically, if I report the third user's behaviour to the noticeboard, my report should more or less go unchallenged, which should allow the administrators to investigate the dispute without interference from the defendant (that being the third user). The fifth user will be regarded as an invader (unwelcome party) if they attempt to interfere in the case. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: China versus Taiwan relations with Nicaragua
China has resumed relations with Nicaragua on the same day --Mike Rohsopht (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Er... then why did you revert my edit? My edit was correct in that case. Plus, you accidentally reverted someone else's edit, and you reverted all of my other minor changes that went along with the Nicaragua edit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have since restored my edit and included the edit of the next guy after both of us. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)