User talk:WikiwiLimeli

Additions to Taiwan without WP:RS
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Taiwan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My source was the US White House Press Office released through Business Wire; it was cited along with my edit. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A press release from the White House is a WP:RS in this situation how? Not covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a briefing by the National Security Advisor, not a "press release". Has nothing to do with WP:ABOUTSELF. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A briefing in this context would still be a self published source, WP:ABOUTSELF applies to all self published or questionable sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article already attributes the source ie the NSA and maybe a few others. The quoted content is not about the NSA or the United States, so WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply then we can't use the self published source in question, you should know this. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the National Security Advisor's briefing counts as "anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert" under WP:SELFPUBLISH. Plus the quote was attributed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop editing the Treaty of Taipei article
What the heck are you doing to this article? Stop removing sourced info willy nilly. If you remove sourced info, you have to actually prove that there's something wrong with the source, or that the information is copy-pasted from somewhere else. If the info is only contained within this article and nowhere else, and it has been sourced, then you can't just delete it as you please. Also, you can't just insert extra information into a sentence or paragraph that has already been sourced. This can mislead the reader into thinking that the new info was sourced by the same source that sourced the old info, when in fact the two bits of info are completely unrelated source-wise. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from stalking me to other articles and reverting my sourced edits following our disagreement over Nancy Pelosi. Please refrain from misrepresenting the facts. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Treaty of Taipei article is one that I've been following for a long time, albeit not closely. You clearly removed a whole bunch of important information without consulting anyone else. That information should not have been removed, period. It was critical to the article. Contrary to what you might think, the claim "Taiwan was never ceded to the Republic of China" is a pretty bold claim from an international perspective and requires heavy sourcing. In my opinion, the claim is true, but nonetheless, you can't just say "it's true because I say so". The sources are there for a reason, and you removed them without a reason. This is not okay. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim "Taiwan was never ceded to the Republic of China" was not in the article I edited in the first place. Neither did I remove any sources. The final edit retained "British and American officials did not recognize any transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty via the San Francisco Peace Treaty" which is more accurate and makes the footnotes redundant. It appears you are misrepresenting facts just to make some kind of a point against me. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You did actually remove a handful of sources, from what I recall. I can probably go and look back in the history to see exactly what happened. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please respect facts for once. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)