User talk:Zhenqinli

Thank you for your contribution to Category:Systems in the past. There is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using " ~ ". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your contribution and vote. See also below! — Jonathan Bowen 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Projects by type
Thank you too for your contribution to the Category:Project management category. This now links to Category:Projects by type for examples of projects in different domains. However, there is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you again for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems and Category:Systems appeal
Many thanks for your support re Category:Systems. Following the deletion, Mdd has initiated a WikiProject Systems. If you would like to participate and support it, do add your name under WikiProject_Systems.

In addition, I'm trying for an appeal for Category:Systems — see Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_20 — we can see what happens anyway, but do add to the discussion! Procedure and following guidelines seems to be important for success, so do read the guidelines on overcategorization and add comments in the light of this if you wish. Best regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jin Jing
Please don't add your own interpretation to articles as you did to Jin Jing. If the source is reliable, and the Globe & Mail as Canada's newspaper of record is a reliable source according to WP:RS, you just can't change the meaning by inserting into the text that it is all speculation. If that would be an ok thing to do every single sentence in the wikipedia would start with according to the speculation of .... If you have reason to assume that it is really speculation you should have no problem finding a source that says so. Preferably not a mouthpiece of the CCP, though. Cheers, Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, so is Geoffrey York, author of the Globe & Mail's OPINION piece. But I would like to remind you that there is a difference between facts and opinions.  As far as facts are concerned, Mr. York did not provide factual support for the statement that "Initially the state media of China censored reports on the torch protest and the incident involving Jin Jing, but soon found it more convenient to report on the protest and portray China as the victim, thus appealing to patriotic sentiments". I hope you would do a better job in checking the original source for factual reports, rather than opinions. If you only find the latter, please state it explicitly.  Thanks. --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should check the source - this is not an opion piece as it is simply not in the opinion section of the Globe & Mail, you can easily check that. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did check the source. The article, with the full title of "BEIJING'S OLYMPIC TROUBLES: COMMUNISTS FRAME THE ISSUE AS US-AGAINST-THEM; China spins protests abroad to buttress support at home", was not labeled as in opinion section. But as I stated earlier, it did not contain much factual reporting, and none regarding the statement that "Initially the state media of China censored reports on the torch protest and the incident involving Jin Jing, but soon found it more convenient to report on the protest and portray China as the victim, thus appealing to patriotic sentiments". If something looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, what do you call it?  --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Zhenqinli. The section of torch relay needs to be improved. There are several sentences talking about the attack by protesters. I think that part needs to be smoothed. Thanks!--Jingandteller (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jin Jing. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yunfeng (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice for yourself, as I am not interested in the POV push as in your example. Thank you.  --Zhenqinli (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding cat for JinJing
Thanks for all the effort, but you and i can not deny the fact that they can easily find sources that labeled a big "propaganda" tag to this incident. I basically can not find any that explicitly argue that it is not. So unless we have sources to dispute it, i would suggest to settle down, for a while. thanks. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the concern. I will continue to edit within Wikipedia guidelines and try to separate opinions from facts, when I find time.  I have to say that watching the performance of "Do What I Say, Not What I Do" is not necessarily a bad experience.  :) --Zhenqinli (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that "Do what i say, Not What i do" refers to double standards (or not?). I guess i just don't get the hidden meaning. Do you mind explaining a bit more?(Cowboybebop98 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

3R Rule
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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oiboy77 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, talking about Law & Order by someone who himself appears to be engaged in an edit war. I am eager to see how convincing is your POV push. :) --Zhenqinli (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think being "presumably meant to signify that she's been the subject of propaganda" is a sufficient reason to apply the controversial category to a living person -- any living person (not just Jin Jing). Presumed by whom? The readers of Wikipedia?  As of now, I have lost confidence in the English Wikipedia appeal process, and will stop editing English Wikipedia for at least the next week, as a gesture of protest.  --Zhenqinli (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The BLP exception to 3RR
A block you received for 3RR is being used as an example in a discussion at WT:BLP. You may wish to contribute your insights. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The Talking Sock talk 05:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Zhenqinli. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Zhenqinli~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 04:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jerry Schad


A tag has been placed on Jerry Schad requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. red dogsix (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerry Schad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balboa Park ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jerry_Schad check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jerry_Schad?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) 09:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong protests
One of your recent additions 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.

October 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 2019 Hong Kong protests, you may be blocked from editing. ''I will still have to warn you that this edit is utterly unacceptable. Source materials should never be distorted like this.'' OceanHok (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Your addition to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests 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. This is regarding content you added on October 10. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests
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. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would advise you that your editing behaviour, which includes and is not restricted to the slow edit warring that you seem to be engaged in at Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests, is considered disruptive editing. The link you insist on including is unnecessary, as the citation of a secondary source obviates the need to cite a primary source which also happens to be a self-published on the Twitter platform. As we all know, such sources are unstable and are often transient, depending on the whims of the author. Deletion by the author would result in archiving issues for Wikipedia. I would urge you to immediately stop behaving in this way. If you continue to do so, you could be blocked, or at worst you could be banned from editing here. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 20:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find it a bit annoying and tedious for someone to go out of his way to drop intimidating and self-righteous messages on other people's talk pages, regarding an issue which is clearly within Wikipedia's acceptable boundaries per RSPRIMARY & Template:Primary_source_inline policies. May I suggest everyone taking a closer look at potential biases of oneself in the mirror and try harder to self-reflect before droping more of the same? --Zhenqinli (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen, editing this series of articles is difficult enough without being caught up in lame disputes such as this. There's no need to go insulting those who disagree with you, thank you. FWIW, once a reliable secondary source picks up a tweet, it satisfies the requirement of WP as to WP:CITE. If you can find more reliable sources, it strengthens the notability claim of the action that is asserted in the article. If you instead can only find a limited number of secondary sources and have to pad it out with a primary source, chances are the assertion isn't notable enough for inclusion. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:24, 13 November 2019 (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) 00:31, 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)