User talk:Yewhock

Internal links
Hi there! I just wanted to let you know about an issue with one of your edits to Tibet sovereignty debate. According to Wikipedia policy on internal links, links to the same article should not be put into the same section and an article should only be linked twice from another if that article is particularly long (in case the reader skipped the part where it was linked earlier). This is DEFINITELY not a problem or criticism; just something to keep in mind for future editing. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Preamble
Hello you put a lot of text into Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet. It may be a good idea to copy the entire treaty to Wikisource instead. Wikipedia articles are not for displaying the full treaty. Benjwong (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ETIM
Thank you for re-adding all those unexplained removes. [User:KappaD] moved over 1,000 bytes of RS, including Refs from Times.com, Washington Post, Newsline.com and People's Daily. I will keep an eye on the entry as well. Thank you again. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Users Yewhock and TheAsianGURU keep adding PRC propaganda to this article. These users are welcome to edit Baidu Baike, but propaganda is not welcomed at Wikipedia. - KappaD (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tibet
I see you added some background about Webster Tarpley's ideas about Tibet to his page. I think it is POV-laden material and would ask that you take a look at it and consider rewriting it in a more evenhanded manner.Njsamizdat (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

July 2009 Ürümqi riots‎
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
 * There is a reason we have talk pages. Use them. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring
This is to inform you that you have been reported for edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)