User talk:Mopswade/Archive 1

Discussion at A
You are invited to join the discussion at A. V2lraXBlZGlhIEFkbWlu (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

New message from Mopswade
V2lraXBlZGlhIEFkbWlu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
You are invited to join the discussion at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. V2lraXBlZGlhIEFkbWlu (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Your edits also violated the policy on neutral point of view and introduced bias. '' Hzh (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As for the information you edited on Li Wenliang, the source I addeddid support the information I put in. The source said that Li Wenliang identified the coronavirus in his Wechat as "SARS", and leading to a warning by local police, as "he did not know whether is was actually SARS. He had posted it too fast", and "that was his mistake". Mopswade (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, but I was under the presumption that The Economist is a reliable source. Please let me know if this is not the case. Mopswade (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Economist did not say what you claimed it says. It did not say it was due to "factual inaccuracies", or that it was "controversial", this is something you made up. You edit on US also did not say "censor", again you invented that. Your edits suggest that you are deliberately introducing falsehood and bias into the article. Hzh (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Guardian, the other source talked about "false rumors", which I used "factual inaccuracies" to repeat the word rumor which was already mentioned. Considering that both sources mention that he was widely mourned along with calls for free speech, and that state censors deleted posts about him, I would think that "controversial" is a reasonable claim for something that attracted massive international media attention.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines censorship as "Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law." As the source of that sentence suggests such a thing happening, I used this word to summarize such happenings. As people were "instructed by the White House not to speak out about the virus without clearance" and the NYT article referenced in the CNN article mentioned that the White House would "tighten control of coronavirus messaging", I think these fall under "suppression" and perhaps even "prohibition". Mopswade (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know what quotation marks mean? It means you are quoting directly. when you put "factual inaccuracies" within quotation marks, you are attributing a quote. If it is not in the source, then you are fabricating a quote. And please no WP:OR because this is what you are doing about censorship (a requirement not to speak without clearance is not the same as censorship, if it is, you can accuse any government or organisation of censorship). Hzh (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Mopswade just wanted to say I’m a little confused by your argument here as you wholesale deleted information sourced to The Economist at Democracy in China. If you’re claiming its reliable only when its convenient for you thats a problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Hzh, perhaps the quotation marks were used out of context, as I only added the quotation marks a while after my original edit, as you used them on the talk page. About the second point, its more about the general "control" and "coordination" of information, but of course if this extra logical link applied is WP:OR then I won't include such things next time. Of course, the definition of censorship is very much open to interpretation, but Britannica does say that it "occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree". Considering there are all sorts of censorship happening, implicitly or explicitly, you could say that all governments have it occurring. Mopswade (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear now that you are unable to read a source and accurately summarise what it says. For example your edit here says  when the source says it was the authority who were  and says nothing about any virus. You are inventing things out of thin air. Ditto for the claim about Wuhan not being the origin, the source does not say that Wuhan not being the origin, it says the market may not be the origin, which is an entirely different claim. All the sources say Wuhan, there is none that question whether Wuhan is the origin apart from Chinese conspiracy theories. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The authorities were notified on the 30th when Li Wenliang sent his Wechat post, most sources agree on that; perhaps this source at the bottom of this page my be more suitable. The origin part in the info box was always "undetermined", even until yesterday, I merely reverted it back as there wasn't any new updates that suggest anything new has been determined. I've been also having a hard time finding science/health publications that confirm the origination of the virus; WHO is investigating and has not confirmed, and many other publications say "most likely originated from Wuhan".Mopswade (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Horse Eye Jack, I think there were some things that weren't cleared up with those edits; I made the edit on the article summary that included the economist source as such issues were not talked about in the main body, and that the article's lead section brings in all sorts of information that aren't even touched upon in the main article, perhaps some things could be moved. I think that the Economist is a very reliable source; I take a subscription into it. Mopswade (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cordial Greetings
Quack! Radicalisedegoist (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Hi Mopswade! In your edit summary at China you said that the Washington Post articles you replaced with an unreliable source were opinion pieces but only one of them appears to be so,  is not an opinion piece. Its generally inappropriate to replace a reliable source (Washington Post) with a highly unreliable source (China Daily) especially if the context is Chinese domestic affairs or politics. Please don’t do this again, thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Horse Eye Jack, I actually just referenced a copy of the speech that was referred to by the writer of the sentence I edited, China Daily wasn't the creator of such information, it was just a speech transcript. It was the first one I found, but if needed I'll try to find a more reliable source. Mopswade (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, I saw that some of the environmental updates weren't replaced after removal, was that because of the information or something else. Also, for the part about the Washington post, the original past talked about how Xi wanted to "further tighten its grip on the country and proclaimed one of the regime's intentions is to establish a new model of totalitarianism", which was really just words taken off the Washington post op-ed, not the words of Xi. In my edit i have tried to use the correct vocabulary to mention the same "communist party to uphold the unity of the party leadership", which was what Washington post called "tighten its grip". The part about totalitarianism was part of the op-ed, and really isn't based off the speech, simultaneously being quite a unique comment about the report; other major media sites did not mention totalitarianism. Mopswade (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Mopswade, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Democracy in China have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Refrain from abusing warning templates like you did here. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. NavjotSR (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would say that a kind reminder, asking you to stop going around wikipedia reverting my edits, even minor ones, would warrant a harassment caution template. What say you?Mopswade (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting you when there is improvement does not constitute harassment. Your problematic understanding of policies is becoming disruptive. Stop edit warring on my talk page, and see WP:OWNTALK. You can remove messages from your talk page. NavjotSR (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think there are areas for improvement feel free to improve the posts. Reversion policy encourages you to "Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reversion?", and that "reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing". Indiscriminate reversion only leads to stagnated development of the article; in cases where edits are uncontroversial, where there is no addition/removal of information, I fail to understand why you are reverting. Mopswade (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no "indiscriminate reversion". I had laid out the objections on talk page right after I had reverted. NavjotSR (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC) page
 * For the page Democracy in China, I have addressed all your concerns. You continued to revert. At Coronavirus pandemic in mainland China, you even reverted my edits which only rearranged information in a chronological manner. Your reason? "incorrect move". Seems quite a lacklustre response; if this is an objection, it is tantamount to a simple "no" and reversion. Mopswade (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence fits better in above paragraphs on Coronavirus pandemic, because censorship was widely reported and they admitted it as well. Anyone who is familiar with the history will also agree. You should abide by BRD and consensus even when you think that you are correct and others are wrong. NavjotSR (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What does "fit better" mean. It will be a lot easier if you are more specific. The sentence in question was/is was placed in the middle of a recount of the situation, the sentence was inserted between December and January, unless this was specific to that time frame, it would be an interruption to the chronological flow of the lead. Also, the information was moved to its companion later on in the lead section, for the sake of the structural integrity of the article, individual points should be grouped together. Mopswade (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The paragraph also includes the warning from Xi which he made on 25 January that China is facing "grave situation". It would make no sense if we avoid mentioning the fact the government was the one who ignored warnings from doctors, journalists and instead they censored them. You are basically telling that we need to add only positive content about their handling and move all criticism to a single paragraph which also speaks of the victimhood of Chinese people. That would be against WP:NPOV. NavjotSR (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of the govt "ignoring warnings from doctors, journalists" etc., I find it hard to see how "positive" the timeline is, it just lays out important facts according the time of their occurrence. Censorship does not only occur during January, it is overarching, and should, and is already mentioned in the concluding paragraph of the lede, repetition is wordy, unnecessary, and as mentioned, interrupts the structure. Using the words "speaks of the victimhood of Chinese people" to support your argument runs the risk of having your views clouded by emotional fallacies; please stick to the cold hard facts. Mopswade (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history 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 BRD 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.

In place of wikilawyering with your broken English, consider reading WP:BRD and WP:CON. Orientls (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Large edits should be discussed on the talk page first, there is a ongoing discussion there, which you can input your invaluable views. Incidentally, I fail to see how my "broken English" has anything to do with this. If you have issues with my style or grammar, I would be honored if you could improve the English. Mopswade (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why you are unable to understand the very policies you have cited here? Instead of disguising your POV pushing under these baseless excuses, you don't you to start complying with WP:NPOV? Orientls (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear me, we're getting quite uncivil here. I have not made any substantial edits on Coronavirus pandemic in mainland China, and my only main edit was reverting your changes to the article, with reasons given, quite far from any POV push. I can assure you that my English skills allow me to understand Wikipedia policies sufficiently.Mopswade (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaving a frivolous warning on my talk page while edit warring on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China and Democracy in China would never make sense to anybody. Do you see any problems in your editing now? Orientls (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not leave a warning, it was a reminder of policy, without any warning template whatsoever. As regards, the edit warring, you seem to enjoy reverting my edits quite a lot. If youre trying to get me to "see any problems in your editing now", there are more direct, constructive, societally beneficial, and policy-adhering methods to do so. Please dont edit to prove a point. Mopswade (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the warm welcome and the resources. I'm looking forward to contributing to Wikipedia.

cheers --Dicedog (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Your addition to Democracy in China has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)