User talk:Tsukide

January 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2020 Jakarta floods, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically, MOS:AVOIDBOLD advises that titles do not always need to be repeated in the lead sentence if the wording is forced and redundant. —Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Protests of 2019
Talk:Protests of 2019 に is the place to discuss if you disagree with my recent changes. Please explain there if necessary, お願いします. Thanks. :) Boud (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Protests of 2019 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.The place to discuss is Talk:Protests of 2019 in the appropriate sections. It is not acceptable to make reverts on the article while ignoring the talk page. Your edit summaries "" and "" are not arguments, the tend to be ad hominem attacks against me rather than discussion of the issues. Boud (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting to use the Talk:Protests of 2019 page. Please read WP:AGF 下さい. Then please respond in the specific subsections of the talk page there that I have referred to so that we can progress on specific editing issues one by one, and again: assume good faith. Thanks! Boud (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Your recent editing history at Citizenship Amendment Act protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've been previously warned of edit warring, but it seems you tatally ignored. Secondly, if you want to amke any major changes in the article as you did, you must first open a thread for discussion in the talk page then go for it. Your recent edit is also not constructive enough. Discuss at talk page of the article if you have any issues. Dey subrata (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"being theorized"
I think we can do better than this phrasing. Is there any way to get this out of the passive voice? For example, "making it probable that the ultimate origin of the virus was in bats" or "which has led researchers to theorize that the ultimate origin of the virus was in bats"? Dekimasu よ! 05:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging Sandstein, who introduced the phrasing to which you objected. For reference, and . Dekimasu よ! 05:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , on the contrary, I removed "theorized".  Sandstein   10:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandstein: right, the removal of “theorized” (and introduction of different phrasing) is part of what Tsukide was objecting to, which is why I mentioned you. Dekimasu よ! 11:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK. I agree that "theorized" is unnecessarily complicated language, and I have removed it again.  Sandstein   11:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the usage of "theorized" is acceptable, such as on the SIV article or this paper. It's wrong to present the likelihood as a fact. Tsukide (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping and Sandstein for further comment. Tsukide (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with the word "theorized" if the sentence scans smoothly. However, the current wording also says "likely", so I don't think it presents likelihood as equivalent to a proven fact. Dekimasu よ! 03:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak - reference section
Hello Tsukide, You appear to have reverted my attempts to move the references from the article text of 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to a designated reference section. From your edit summary "Consensus was against simplification so this is bordering vandalism", there seems to be a consensus that I am unaware of. I certainly did not intend to vandalize anything. Looking at the article talk page, I cannot find any mention of "reference section", so I don't understand your edit. Could you please explain to me why the article should not be simplified (or link me to the relevant discussion)? Renerpho (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not mean my edits? I that case forget my question. Renerpho (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note though that the reference section got broken by this. I see now it wasn't your edit that broke this. My apologies. Renerpho (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You continue to duplicate entire paragraphs of content
You also continue to link to a name that the article is not called and you do not have the consensus of a move request to change it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the paragraph promptly when I understood I had written my paragraph twice. There are also multiple names running around so I am using the official name. I am fine with multiple names being used though my personal choice will always be the official one. Tsukide (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We generally use the name of the article. Some of the stuff you have added is also incorrect.
 * And ref 17 does not work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually add any new information and used the available references. You have removed some information in your edits, but I simply rewrote existing information in a more clear and concise way with new paragraphing, unless of course your edits removed the references. Tsukide (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the broken references, please see here. My apologies, but there is so much traffic on this article, it is difficult to not create edit conflicts. Renerpho (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The ref says "There is no specific antiviral treatment recommended for 2019-nCoV infection. People infected with 2019-nCoV should receive supportive care to help relieve symptoms. For severe cases, treatment should include care to support vital organ functions."
 * WHat you have added multiple times says "There are no vaccines nor effective treatments, with efforts typically confined to management of symptoms and supportive measures."
 * Which is very much different so now Wikipedia is wrong which is unfortunate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The initial inclusion of that sentence weeks ago was by me using a reference from the UK govenment. I have lost the original webpage but a similar webpage still exists:
 * "In the absence of effective drugs or a vaccine, control of this disease relies on the prompt identification, appropriate risk assessment, management and isolation of possible cases, and the investigation and follow up of close contacts to minimise potential onward transmission.'
 * http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-wn-cov-infection-prevention-and-control-guidance Tsukide (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak‎, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a regular editor on that page and I'm mostly removing my own content or repeated content. Tsukide (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have 273 edits total since 5 Jan and the page gets around 500 every few days. That hardly qualifies as a regular editor. Given the previous warnings, I suggest you provide diffs demonstrating your claims. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I created the impact section and much of the text in that section is by me... Anyway, that text you are complaining about shouldn't be under Impact but under Epidemiology, ideally in the "outbreak by country" article. Tsukide (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs, or it did not happen.
 * Don't do any further reverts on this matter, per WP:BRD. And if you intend to deceive, don't do it with this kind of edit summary. Material such as the below in no way can be depicted as "epidemiology": On 6 February 2020, Taiwan raised the outbreak level on China, Hong Kong, and Macau to level 2 (alert). On the same day, Taiwan banned all entries of Chinese citizens or any foreigners travelled to China, Hong Kong or Macau within 14 days. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you see similar information being written for the other countries? It's because that information is under Epidemiology, or Outbreak by Country if the information is not good enough for the main article. Tsukide (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care. The fact is, you show not the slightest intention of adhering to WP:BRD. Plus, WP:OSE is a terrible argument due to the context of Cross-strait relations between two regimes (not countries). Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't care then you're being disruptive and nothing else. The facts remain that the information you want to include should go under Epidemiology and Prevention respectively, and already exists there or in the Outbreak by country article. There's no reason to give Taiwan an exception when such information is omitted for other country subheadings as well. Tsukide (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's what I would like to recommend: Defend your points without describing subjective viewpoints on the behavior of others/ascribing motives to other users.  I recommend using a lighter touch. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not clear in wording, it is rather that I don't care for your lame excuse of a justification ("other countries don't have it") when I just pointed out the Cross-strait relations. And you may dispense with lecturing others on "disruption" when you are the one who has received multiple warnings barely 45 days into their editing tenure, lest be rightly accused of naked hypocrisy.
 * And stop posting replies on my talk page when the thread was started here, that's WP:HARASSMENT and violation of WP:TPG. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote on your talkpage to draw attention to you since you hadn't replied to my comment and saying that's harassment is ridiculous. The text I removed discussed prevention measures and epidemiology, not politics. I have written on your talkpage telling you that I will support you writing about politics if written as such. Tsukide (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * draw attention to you can definitely be construed as harassment, regardless of the violation of WP:TPG; you also attempted to "solicit the same attention" 11 minutes after I told you to keep replies on one page. Hence it's not very convincing that you were not harassing. And sorry, this is more like sarcasm, not "support". I do not know if you are from an Anglophone region, so on objective grounds, I will, for the time, refrain from accusing you of yet another instance of "lying". Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * What you are doing now is harassment since you're adding nothing to the debate. My comment on your talkpage had new and more clear information about my position... I didn't remove any political information and left the "one-china policy" hyperlink including information about countries that banned Taiwanese (despite the fact this should go under Prevention). I was actually going to say that you must not be a native speaker of English because of the way you read by comments, hence I was being easier on you, but this argument is ridiculous because you're not providing any good reason to keep the information... it's under the wrong section, end of. As I said, I wrote much of the information under Impact, including plenty of stuff about politics, you are most welcome to expand the Taiwanese section on information about the political impact of the coronavirus. Tsukide (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You could have prevented all of this with an edit summary, I would not have been inclined to revert under that circumstance. So all the blame here lies squarely with yourself. I suggest you don't commit any more faux pas such as the "regular editor" (which smacks of WP:OWN given the high edit rate) remark. Good day and good riddance. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I just noticed this. I admire your bravery for having the gall to deem an administrator's edits vandalism. Truly a "strong and stable" start to an editing career. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 09:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging @Dekimasu User:Dekimasu to resolve this conflict since obviously this argument is going into unrelated topics.

Basically, I believe that the information which I removed from the Taiwan subheading, of Impact section, should not be there and should instead be under Epidemiology, Prevention or Outbreak by country. I support him if he wishes to write about politics and how the travel restrictions are viewed in light of the one-china policy (I had actually left the sentence about Filipino travel restrictions which had a one-China policy hyperlink), but I am against simply listing travel restrictions etc... which should be written about under other article headings (epidemiology, prevention, outbreak by country...) and have been excluded from the other country subheadings of the Impact section. Tsukide (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like tensions are running too high here, and that a few hours off would do everybody good. It seems that CaradhrasAiguo has already decided to move on for now. However, with my editor hat on, the outbreak article is suffering from bloat and reducing the number of tangential references (or moving them to other sections and consolidating) is something that will be important for that article going forward. The idea that everything that's cited must remain in the article is misguided. Now, to what extent details should remain has to be determined by consensus, and I would suggest using the article's talk page (where third opinions will be frequent) rather than user talk pages (which tend to be one-on-one) in order to resolve any new conflicts. Overall, things are moving quickly and don't let a single argument get to you. Best, Dekimasu よ! 10:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
We have discussion here Your wording dose not have consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic for GA
I have decided to nominate the page, COVID-19 pandemic, as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added 10.2% of the text on the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)