User talk:Tony85poon

Welcome!
Hello, Tony85poon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Simple references
These require two parts;


 * a)

Chzz is 98 years old.

He likes tea.


 * b) A section called "References" with the special code " ";

Named references
Chzz was born in 1837.

Chzz lives in Footown.

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates
You can put anything you like between, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals.

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Badger game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Badger_game check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Badger_game?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) 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Root analogue dental implant
I have removed the tag from Root analogue dental implant, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

alright thanks Tony85poon (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Hello, I'm A Poor Historian. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Qian Xinzhong have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Take the issue to the talk page of that article, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hyperius1255 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hello. I'm not entirely sure what you were attempting to do with this edit, but please review WP:TPG before making any similar edits in the future.

Talk pages are intended to be a record of the discussion. While some comments should be removed because they violate policies or are disruptive, generally it's better to archive them. Handling this properly takes some experience with Wikipedia and an understanding of what other users expect from a talk page, so it should be done in a consistence manor, per H:ARC. Refactoring comments is rarely acceptable, and rearranging sections only causes confusion. Instead of adding templates to old discussions and then presenting those comments as part of consensus after the fact, start a new discussion at the bottom of the page, or add a new comment at the bottom of the section, per WP:BOTTOMPOST.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Dentures
Are not really implants. And there is not really enough content for a history of dentures article. I would simple leave it were it is.

Prosthesis and implants are different. And implant is something that cannot be easily removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How should we fix the page History of implants? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it, firstly, try not to cause trouble with fellow Wikipedians. Trivialist undid my edit on Breast implant. Therefore, I am going to leave that article unchanged. I am not going to start an edit-war just to chop out that history section. Be patient. Secondly, I have given some thoughts on the History of implants. You make a good point about the easiness of removal. As ear-rings (requiring ear-piercing) can be removed easily, I am reluctant to expand the Decoration section by including the history of body piercing. Thirdly, Extraocular implant require surgical removal, hence definitely worth being in the "see also" (I searched google for images, looks like a non-functional implant to me). Fourthly, the name of Facial prosthetic itself looks like Craniofacial prosthesis. I intentionally place them far away so that readers don't mix them up. Tony85poon (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of History of implants for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of implants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/History of implants until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Graham 87 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Kindly include the AFD in and WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine, cheers. Are you going to undo/revert my recent edit to Dental implant? I inserted the "For pre-1981 history, see History of implant." Tony85poon (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ocular prosthesis into History of implants. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Deletion review
Hi Tony, I have nothing further to say there that hasn't been said by everybody else. Also, please Use the new section button! Don't piggy-back off old talk page threads. Graham 87 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dental implant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Off-the-shelf ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dental_implant check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dental_implant?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training


A tag has been placed on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrOllie (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi Tony85poon. I reverted your redirect to Draft:Beto O'Rourke 2020 presidential campaign because widespread practice is to not redirect from article space (mainspace) to other namespaces (draft, user pages, Wikipedia: pages, etc.). In this case, it's especially important because the campaign does not yet exist (see WP:CRYSTAL) and we don't warn users ("not even done yet, to make it clear to the readers" - see WP:DISCLAIM). If O'Rourke does announce his candidacy, the draft article can be moved to mainspace. - MrX 🖋 11:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

POV
Regarding, this edit, do you think that a video titled "Trump ... DESTROYS Spartacus With Brutal One-Liner" is a neutral source? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) I don't know. At least I wasn't joking. That's how Donald Trump won the 2016 election: being a fast political attack dog. It may or may not work this time, who knows? There is an English saying "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Tony85poon (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

To further elaborate. Supporters of the campaign should keep a close eye with the latest news. If there are new reliable sources about Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign, then throw them into the article as soon as possible. The special thing about Booker is that he supports marijuana legalization. That's what the Libertarian Party wanted. I wonder whether Booker is going to get endorsements for marijuana. Tony85poon (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Leading an article on Booker's campaign with a quote from Trump, the man he's trying to unseat, that says he has no chance and is attributed to a YouTube video from a supporter fails Wikipedia policies in several ways. Do not reinsert. If you want to discuss it on the article's talk page, you're free to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, talk page and see how it goes. Tony85poon (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Your recent editing history at Kirsten Gillibrand 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. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the three-revert rule. Tony85poon (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. The thing is you will have to get consensus. Picking a fight with me isn't going to help, certainly not if you're running into the same criticism on Talk:Kamala Harris, where, , , and are also critical of the addition. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TJH2018. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJH2018 talk  04:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tony85poon_reported_by_User:Supermann_(Result:_) Supermann (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You were warned for edit warring at 08:38. But you continued to revert. You are risking a block for continuing the edit war at Film censorship in China at 10:44 on 26 Feb). There may still be time for you to promise to stop reverting until consensus in your favor is decided on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Highlighting a sentence
Hi, why did you highlight the sentence in this edit? J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 13:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I am asking for a citation. I want to see the law in original Chinese language, or a Judgement by a Chinese court. Sources from the news help too. Wikipedia-editors' impression may or may not accurately reflect the Chinese legal position.Tony85poon (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I thought you highlighted it to warn people in China who are reading the article of the strict censorship there. By the way I'm living in China J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 15:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Continued warring at Film censorship in China
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. You continued to revert this article on 27 Feb. after being warned for edit warring at WP:AN3 on 26 February. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Testing during the block period. Tony85poon (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He is still edit-warring.  How about banning for a month? Thx Supermann (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say a month is a bit harsh but its apparent that this user has no intention if stopping his edit-warring behaviour. Geartooth  The Pony Who Edits 23:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is how you treat an editor who cares about Neutral Point of View? WP:CENSOR. Tony85poon (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony85spoon, I hope that you do take it to heart coming from me, but I do genuinely ask that you do not make any more reversions or edits relating to this dispute to the article. It will be seen as continued edit warring, and you will be blocked again. Do not touch the article and remain on the talk page for the article. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. Finally someone see my contributions, thank goodness! Tony85poon (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Are you familiar with our community standard on canvassing? I'm not suggesting you necessarily violated it, but you're on thin ice when you recruit editors based your perception of their neutrality. There are better ways to broaden participation in a dispute, covered in WP:APPNOTE. R2 (bleep) 18:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your warning. I appreciate having the "conduct disputes" here, and the "content disputes" at the Talk Pages of the articles concerned. In that message, I invited him to give "independent thoughts". Therefore, it is up to Poor Historian himself to decide what he should do for the greater good. Tony85poon (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poonif you get even a slight feeling that an edit you are considering might be controversial or you have not fully considered it as justified, start a discussion on the talk page. Write your suggestion for an edit and ask fellow editors to check your work for acceptability. Do not continue to edit the article until you have discussed it with other editors. If you feel their reversions are unfair, state your reasons. fellow editors will then cite various wikipedia policies to explain why they disagree.

I noticed that you have a history of having articles deleted. I know this can be frustrating. consider writing a stub and heavily referencing it with reliable sources from the WP:RSP or reliable academic journals. Then you can submit this for review on the deletion appeal noticeboard. WP:DRV If you're polite enough and ask for advice on the topic then fellow editors will often offer advice. Try to pick a topic that nobody has written about before. Verify references (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon This should further explain why a large list of links you added to the article were deleted. WP:CITEKILL try to sympathise with admins as they are constantly reviewing the same types of posts and it drives you insane after a while. also consider adding something basic to your user page because when your name appears red in the edit history people tend to be far more critical. you can ask for further advice from me if you'd like. just add a link to my userpage to a comment ping me. Verify references (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Swiss language joke. I am trying. Tony85poon (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Talk:Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign. I am trying. Tony85poon (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Political_positions_of_Cory_Booker. Tony85poon (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. ''Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for conversation but are focused on improving articles in specific ways, not a general discussion of a subject. That is better done on message boards and social media. Also, there is no reason to post a dozen messages to a single article talk page. Less is more. You don't want to dominate a discussion.'' Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is clear you haven't read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, despite my suggestion that you do so... either that, or you have an unusual sense of what information is typically included in an encyclopedia. I'm particularly concerned that you repeatedly insist on adding content because you find it personally interesting. Can you please confirm you've read that policy? Thanks. R2 (bleep) 18:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Further - If you regularly revert and ignore the input of your fellow editors, then you will end up getting sanctioned for disruptive editing even if you don't cross WP:3RR's bright line rule. There is a pending discussion about whether you should be permanently banned from American Politics article. I suggest you be on your best behavior. If you're not sure what that means then just. stop. editing. until you do. R2 (bleep) 18:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign 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. R2 (bleep) 19:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding resolved tags partway through article talk page discussions. If you're saying you agree with your fellow editors, or you've decided to no longer pursue an issue, then say that explicitly, and the end of the discussion. R2 (bleep) 16:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I "borrowed" the tick from Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. I believe that most of us feel comfortable to see colour green. Tony85poon (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more typical to see it use on noticeboards than in 1-on-1 discussions. Regardless, the purpose isn't to end a discussion, but to mark a discussion that has already ended. Translation: If you no longer wish to argue a point, say that explicitly. R2 (bleep) 00:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, could you please stop using candidates' first names? It might be easier for you, but it's not easy for the rest of us. Remember that the purpose of article talk pages is to facilitate discussion. If your fellow editors have to scratch their heads when reading your comments, then we're not being as effective as we could be. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I apologize. Tony85poon (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jimmy Carter. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Tony85poon (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * Seriously, you had to resort to socking? Drmies (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)