Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.2.221 ( talk) 07:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply

The

Adventure

Hi Joppa Chong!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lucie Voňková may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]<ref>http://www.sparta.cz/srv/www/cs/football/team/viewMemberDetail.do?memberId=1578 Profile at Sparta website</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, Joppa Chong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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. Bishonen | talk 03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, Joppa Chong. I've been reading your posts on Talk:Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and it seems to me that you are abusing the talkpage and not discussing in good faith. This edit and this are mere trolling and timewasting, and there is a limit to how far that will be tolerated on Wikipedia. The second diff is very aggressive, especially considering that you had already been referred to the policy on Reliable sources. And in the middle of that discussion, you removed yet again the material that you had given no good reason for excluding from the article. You have ignored my edit warring warning above. I have blocked you for 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC). reply

PS: Please don't mark substantial edits as "minor", as it is misleading. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC). reply

Hi, Bishonen. I apppreciate your recommendations. However, I am a little bit disappointed with your conduct and selective targeting. By doing so, you support broad systematical assaults on the objectivity of this encyclopedia. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Spitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood money. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Please discuss on talk:Margaret Sanger per wp:BRD That has been in the article for some time. Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 05:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Joppa Chong. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	thank you Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 03:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not disputing your deletion of Category:Companies based in Wolverhampton because I expect you know the company is somehow categorised in Wolverhampton elsewhere. But please may I know where? Thanks, Eddaido ( talk) 22:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Eddaido, it's embedded via Category: Manufacturing companies based in Wolverhampton. — Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. -- Aunva6 ^{talk - contribs} 06:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your information. Unfortunately, I originally was unaware of this issue and some circumstances. I regret that. However, you will also know that WP:Essays have an inofficial character. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 05:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Considering your long-time interest in the article Center for Family and Human Rights and your many edits removing negative information and adding the organization's own view of itself, are you aware of the Conflict of interest guideline? Do you have any connection with C-Fam? Are you employed by it? Bishonen | talk 14:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC). reply

Of cause, there are no such problems. Sorry for the irritations but this doesn't justify hypocrisy. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 05:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

That sounds a little vague; a conflict of interest wouldn't necessarily be a problem, though it does carry certain responsibilities. Could you please state explicitly whether you have any kind of connection with C-Fam, or not? As for hypocrisy, I don't understand you. What hypocrisy do you speak of? Please be specific. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC). reply

I'm just a C-FAM Friday Fax newsletter subscriber, so what? I suggest it would be better to not only ask for other people's neutrality. By the way: Checking WP: Edit summary is highly recommended. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 23:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for answering. No, subscribing to the newsletter isn't a relationship that implies a conflict of interest, so that's fine. But your "suggestion" is strange. I'm a Wikipedia administrator; I'm supposed to ask people to divulge any conflict of interest it looks like they may have. Since you choose not to explain the "hypocrisy" barb, I'll assume it was just a random insult with no specific meaning (like your "vandalism" remark). Please avoid those. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC). reply

The template I added was uw-vandalism 1 which conveys a relatively soft objection. You could initiate a plea for renaming it. I did not complain that you care for possible neutrality affairs of other users according to your role. No one should forget to questionate one's own intentions. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 01:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I wasn't talking about the template with its soft squishy objection, but this offensive edit summary. I'm finding it rather heavy going trying to communicate with you, so I won't waste any more time on you and your passive-aggressive hinting. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC). reply

Dear User:Bishonen, the section above already addressed the incident. I wonder what you deem aggressivity while you keep pushing a maximum coverage of a hate group allegation against a serious think tank. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Joppa Chong and Center for Family and Human Rights. -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 14:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Joppa Chong. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beer in Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic ( check to confirm |  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) 09:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Joppa Chong. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Gerry Weber 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 company, corporation or organization that 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 deleting administrator. — S Marshall  T/ C 23:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:RS. We don't include self-sourced self-descriptions of controversial organisations. Instead, we defer to what reliable independent sources say. Tennessee Right to Life and c-fam are not reliable independent sources. Guy ( help!) 23:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I replaced the pop.org quote, however I think the source is not excluded, at least for WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. C-FAM and Austin Ruse might not be overly diplomatic, but are recognized UN insiders and apply scientific standards. They were cited just as an additional source, so the information is not based exclusively on that source. Joppa Chong ( talk) 19:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, the issue really is WP:FRINGE - we need to be sure that fringe points of view like PRI's are not represented uncritially. Guy ( help!) 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There is a Criticism section in the article. Nevertheless, what PRI stands for and does must be addressed right in the center of the article. PRI is not merely about fringe. If you know fringe povs, you could add it and handle that. As for now, I see no problem. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 21:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I have raised this at WP:FTN. Regardless, you keep reintroducing crappy and promotional sourcing. Please don't do that. Guy ( help!) 00:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No way. The sources I bring up relate to the sentence in question and have credibility. You don't mind if a cite you reinstate does not mention what it is supposed to. Provided that it fits your bias. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I note your failure to assume good faith here. And without reading everything above, your comments to User:Bishonen were very much in the same vein. Not a good idea. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

As shown in User talk:Joppa Chong#WP:COI question, unlimited trust in the good faith of users like Bishonen watched in flagranti would be beyond the practise. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 19:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I note that User:Guy has not been templated after violating WP:netiquette and lacking willingness to respond to arguments in the section before in which you interfered subjectively. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 23:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, probably because I am explaining policy from the background of over a dozen years and well over 120,000 edits. Guy ( help!) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Fine. I did not say, you would have deserved such a message. Rather, I think: If the recommendation to refrain templates is obeyed, it should be obeyed consistently. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't interfere subjectively. And I would have been violating policy if I'd given Guy an alert. Look at the top of his talk page - you don't alert people who have been alerted in the past year. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Which alert? I just see the one for me here. The one-sided editing behaviour of User:JzG alias Guy tolerating a misleading cite appears encouraged. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, you seem to be under a misapprehension. Our policies on sourcing apply regardless of the ideology of the content. I'd have reverted negative material sourced to militant abortion rights groups as well, if you'd added that. Guy ( help!) 10:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

If I'd added that. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I've no idea what that comment means, but you don't seem to have read Guy's talk page carefully. I repeat, I would have been in violation of policy if I gave anyone an alert if they'd already had or declared one in the last year - see the green bar at the top of his page saying "Discretionary sanctions"? How did you miss that? Doug Weller talk 19:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The topic of this thread is the politically incorrect template above and I have not recommended anybody to get one. The policy you claim seems funny. Furthermore, I see the encouraging effect rather confirmed. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 01:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, it is correct both technically and politically. Guy ( help!) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I'd love to know how it could be incorrect either way. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The template and its predictable abuse is at odds with WP:Be bold. The POV pushing it encourages instead goes on and on. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

And yet it's our policy, agreed by the WP:Arbitration Committee (some of it while I was a member) with the wording of the alert agreed by the community. See my comments below, this is again evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and we don't need editors with that approach to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistent edit warring and promotional editing, as you did at Population Research Institute. 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: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

My edits have been constructive, policy-driven and tried to uphold priority as well as respect to the course of discussion. As an involved admin, you were not entitled to follow the request of the biased real edit warrior anyway. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, in your opinion. Whereas independent editors with a much wider range of editing interests and much greater experience of Wikipedia, say they were not.

Sometimes, when everybody who knows what they are talking about tells you that you are wrong, it is because you are wrong.

I urge you to consider the very strong possibility that this is one of those times. Guy ( help!) 23:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I observe a joint effort of like-minded allies. Misleading quotations and tendentious speech remain mistakes. Your recent removal of the awards attained by Austin Ruse is especially obvious. You should correct such diffs if you want to show seriosity. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 23:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, Conspiracist bullshit. Guy ( help!) 23:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Don't let Cabalists and trojan horses infect you. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 00:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, WP:TINC. Guy ( help!) 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, it would be easier to talk with you if you said what you mean in a straightforward way, with specifics, instead of in a series of hints. For example, who is in your opinion "the biased real edit warrior", whose request you think I have "followed"? Please don't present your accusations in the form of riddles and rebuses, but name specific names and specific actions. With the way you write, I can only answer in a very vague, guess-worky way, which wastes my time and yours. Example, in answer to your "As an involved admin, you were not entitled to follow the request of the biased real edit warrior anyway", I can only say: "Who is the 'real edit warrior', and what do you mean by their 'request'? I am not an involved admin; you need to read WP:INVOLVED; and I deny following any particular user's request in this. I have followed my own opinion which I formed from reading the hisory of the Population Research Institute. Though I was indeed inspired to read the history by PaleoNeonate's edit here." I'm not willing to spend further work and time trying to ferret out what you're talking about, nor in trying to explain our policies and guidelines that you are so unwilling to learn about. I won't even ask the meaning of your further hints concerning cabalists and Trojan horses. They're not as interesting as you think. Bishonen | tålk 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC). reply

As you linked to the fringe discussion, you can also see your own one-sided contribution and relevant names. When the hostile biased atmosphere escalated, you proved servile, leaving qualms of objectivity behind. This is not the first time you played foul against me and an organization you dislike. Responsibility would include facing the damage done to an article by facilitating manipulation. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 00:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith are going to get you nowhere except blocked. If you are going to treat every disagreement as a WP:BATTLEGROUND then you really need to read WP:NOTHERE. I use an automated tool called Twinkle to do a lot of tasks including warning and blocking, and one of the templates is an indefinite block labeled NOTHERE. There are now other alternatives such as blocks from specific pages, etc. But your failure to assume good faith seems to go back almost 5 years at least, so maybe you just can't change. It's' all up to you. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I was invited to make up my mind more bluntly. My deescalation trials are well documented, likewise my opposition to manipulation of the PRI article. As unlimited good faith canot be granted and is not required by the policy cited, and you already deny me the basic one, you should leave what some unfortunately treat as a battleground. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 01:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not involved in the article. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Your edit summary including ″I'm not sure if "false basis" is the best wording but at least it's spelled correctly″ was not a sign of due diligence and source-checking. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This is getting pointless. What part of "not involved" are you struggling with? Being not involved means just that. I can revert vandalism without being involved, I cannot do content work and stay uninvolved. If I'd done what you think I should do I would not be in a position to sanction editors involved in the article. You can be rude to me all you want, but you must be civil to other editors. Doug Weller talk 05:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have been frank on request by an admin exposed in flagranti in the past and repeating the bad behavior, is this a role model you follow? You play the one-way policy wonk, tolerant to manipulation against PRI. You went in here repealing the New York Times cited sentence although the edit history of the article makes clear: I had already reprimanded that the source doesn't back the claim. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Nope, I didn't repeal any such edit, maybe that was User:JzG. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

While it is right that this user aka Guy had vigorously reintroduced the false basis claim not backed by the source, your edit amended the object of this claim. That was evitable for it required checking also false basis. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, you make less sense with each succeeding comment. Guy ( help!) 21:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

When you see things clarified, trolling around is no good idea. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, I refer the hon. gentleman to my previous comment. Guy ( help!) 22:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

JzG PRI/UNFPA. You even touted it bogus in the edit summary. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, I refer the hon. gentleman to my previous comment. Guy ( help!) 14:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

CPD is a self-published source by an activist group. It does not meet the standards required for Wikipedia sourcing. Please stop adding unreliable sources. Guy ( help!) 20:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The assumption that information is based solely on such a source is quite present in this policy, which makes me wonder whether we do have a specific rule on additive sourcing, if the issue is ignored and not addressed. Moreover, your apparent interest would be more credible if you did also care about keeping data correct and stick to the facts in the edit summary. Joppa Chong ( talk) 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, why would you need a rule just to say that adding a redundant unreliable source is wrong? Guy ( help!) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

In the particular context, their acknowledgement does matter, the reader gets an extra choice. Joppa Chong ( talk) 23:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You're kidding, right?

Ruse is a descendant of early English colonists. He and his wife Cathleen, a senior legal advisor to the Family Research Council, have two daughters, and live in Virginia.

The descendant of early English colonists and his wife Cathleen, a senior legal advisor to the Family Research Council, have two daughters, and live in Virginia.

Which one of those makes more sense? JimKaatFan ( talk) 13:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

My edit summary intended to illustrate what I mean. It's all grammatically correct and unambiguous, however we should keep the monotony out of the section and maintain cite coverage for the entire statement. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I have attempted to assume good faith. However, it is obvious at this point that all of your edits to the Austin Ruse article are slanted one way - to make his statements seems less egregious and offensive, and to make his public profile seem less odious. If you have a connection to the subject, now would be the time to disclose that. Regardless, the attempts to whitewash and otherwise soften the sourced information in the article won't go unnoticed. Thank you. JimKaatFan ( talk) 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I just subscibed to the rather sophisticated C-Fam newsletter, so I wonder what picture is promoted here in the article. If you see people caring for WP:LIVING, this is no good reason to harrass people and should be very normal, anyway. Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I have been following your tendentious editing at Center for Family and Human Rights for some time. There, you regularly change well-sourced facts to mere "rumors", "perceptions" or "allegations" [1] [2] [3], and you remove well-sourced negative material, as here and here. This, out of many more or less mangled versions of the same sentence that you have added, is particularly egregious: you write that "Heidi Beirich of the SPLC's Intelligence Project spreaded perceived information that Ruse has allegedly supported the criminalization of homosexuality". My italics. As for the related article Austin Ruse, I'm afraid I have to agree with JimKaatFan above: you have been whitewashing it. Here, you added "allegedly" to a well-sourced event that was unflattering for Ruse. Then when the "allegedly" was reverted, you instead removed the whole section, falsely claiming link rot. [4] I don't know what the rest of your edit summary there meant: "removed exposing material". Huh? Do you mean it exposed something about Ruse's character? As an experienced editor, I'm sure you know that's not a reason to remove material, provided it's well sourced, as in this case. (And there was nothing "alleged" about it either.) Again reverted, you restored the nonsensical "alleged". All of the above is what's known as tendentious editing. Desist or you will be blocked. I have given you short blocks before; the next one will be long, as your tendentious editing is a long-time problem and you have never shown any readiness to follow NPOV where Center for Family and Human Rights and related topics are concerned. Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC). reply

Bear in mind WP:LIVING, we talk about exposing information about Ruse and this requires caution dealing with sources. The link rot I mentioned was the reason User:JimKaatFan changed the source, of course a step in the right direction. However, as it is now, the sentence must be modified to reflect that the author (Dreher) did not seem fully convinced of his opinion; although upholding it, he apologised for the case of error. Similarly, I interfered correctly in the Beirich quote matter. She did not make statements her own she referred to in the interview, and without disclosing sources, the reliability of quotations is limited. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

When you removed the section here there was no link rot. It was a good link, to a reliable secondary source, as well as showing Ruse's own tweet. No "caution dealing with sources" comes into play. You can't remove well-sourced stuff because it throws a negative light on the subject, and nothing in WP:LIVING suggests you can. Doing so is what we call whitewashing. Your many, many attempts to rewrite the Beirich quote, some making less sense than others, all of them imply more or less clearly that she is offering mere "quotations" rather than fact. SPLC is actually a reliable source, as is Reuters. My warning stands. Bishonen | tålk 04:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC). reply

Your one-sided behavior is well documented above.

WP:Assume good faith also applies for a link rot hint. From my perspective, information on Ruse had obviously vanished. What is resumed is an updated version with the conditional apology, different from the original one. Moreover, the linked article does not look Ruse-related at first sight. My interference caused an improvement of the source situation. The arbitrary reasoning of your action appears to have encouraged User:JimKaatFan to restore the false treatment of the Beirich quote claiming she said something about Ruse she in fact just referred to, as well as other problematic diffs. As the question of reliability of SPLC is off-topic in this respect, I call for a return to fairness and objectivity. Immediate reaction is necessary. Of course, WP:LIVING is not disposable and also applies to presentations of persons who might have acted controversally. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 21:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Watch your mouth when you use my name, Joppa. Doesn't sound like you're assuming good faith here. And for the record, I don't need Bishonen or anyone else to point out to me when you're whitewashing articles. It's obvious to even the dumbest of editors, like me. Look on your own talk page - I was onto your brand of editing over a month ago. JimKaatFan ( talk) 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

So this is your good faith? Interesting. You sit on the roots of that POV pushing. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 00:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I see you have continued your tendentious editing after my warning. This edit is a good example, and these are also extremely dodgy — "appreciation"? "lamented"? (seriously?). You have been blocked for six months from editing Center for Family and Human Rights and Austin Ruse. I have left you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, including (after some hesitation) Population Research Institute, and also the talkpages of Center for Family and Human Rights and Austin Ruse. However, if you should edit disruptively, your block may be extended to cover more pages, or the whole site. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 10:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC). reply

I wrote a clarification in Talk:Center for Family and Human Rights. You should correct this move by which you interfered constructive efforts to rebalance an article. This move is inspired by an adverse athmosphere and hedging a grudge from the editing past I mentioned. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You wrote an argument rather than a clarification. You had already mentioned WP:SAID in the edit summary where you introduced the extravagantly unsuitable word "lamented" in lieu of "noted", so I was aware of the reason you were offering for the change. I didn't think it was a good reason, or a good change. If you wish to appeal the block in a way that brings an uninvolved admin to this page to review it, you need to follow the instructions in my block notice. Bishonen | tålk 10:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC). reply

Nice that you remind me. However, you are offered the opportunity to discretely remove the unfair block. You exaggerate aspects as to "extravagantly unsuitable" like above "many many attempts", these were surreal. If something is widely considered lamentable and someone lamented holding a very negative view, sticking to the fact doesnt suggest that was strange. Consider I applied WP policies and I made clear that I do not insist on particular wording. In the Austin Ruse article, the edit warrior has reverted and, by asserting a fact, ignored Dreher's conditional apology as well as Ruse's disagreement. This was facilitated by chaining the watchdog; so get active. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 02:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Since you object to my statement above that you made "many, many attempts to rewrite the Beirich quote", I'll provide some diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. You made these edits before my warning, in four days, from 8 October to 12 October. After my warning, there were these: [19] [20]. I agree with you that these attempts to modify the text concerning the Beirich quote were a bit surreal, especially in the mass, and some of them individually as well. I'm done on this page now, unless you have a serious question that I really need to answer — you realize, I hope, that it took me some time to collect these diffs. I suggest you move on to requesting unblock; your "discretion" in the matter is not needed. Bishonen | tålk 10:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC). reply

Which page do you wanna leave? We can also take this to another page. I see none of these diffs individually surreal. E.g. switches in attributions like Beirich/SPLC and Ruse/C-Fam needed adjustments. Remember there were several bulldozer setbacks I reacted to. Since I am blocked, the Beirich quotation has been given extra credibility again ignoring WP:SAID. The status quo ante has to be restored. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Joppa Chong, not it doesn't. Just sayin'. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

In Talk:Center_for_Family_and_Human_Rights#Ruse's_calls_for_the_criminalization_of_homosexuality, you obviously called for the ban and later on you suggested the article would be the right place to depict a shitstorm against Ruse. That's what I see as cabal activity and inconsistent with adminship. Peer review is due. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You have been repeatedly warned about edit-warring and whitewashing Austin Ruse and related articles. You are, in fact, just coming off a block from these articles for this behavior. I note that you have resumed this behavior, and am pinging Bishonen for potential action. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You have not provided a source for the specific claim about Ruse you insist on. The one indirectly getting blocked is WP:LIVING. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 20:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

As soon as your previous partial block from Austin Ruse expired, you went back to your whitewashing activities. You have been indefinitely blocked from that article. I believe you know what to do to request unblock, as you have been informed about it with every previous block. Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC). reply

Why don't you resist to these arbitrary instrumentalizations? – Joppa Chong ( talk) 20:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Bishonen, as to the source situation, no source is cited for Ruse's supposed support in written form. You once again enhanced doing damage to credibility and should correct it. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The sources are not in the lead, where you removed the material, but down in the article, where they belong. Also, why not take it to talk, where you have not posted since February, instead of edit warring? Bishonen | tålk 01:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC). reply

User:Bishonen, I already addressed the topic in the section above and in the article edit summary. Of course, SPLC material saw Ruse advocating in this way, but writings of Ruse are not mentioned in the related Austin Ruse#Anti-gay views cite. So according to WP:LIVING, the unsourced delicate allegation can be removed immediately. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 01:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Even though I hit rollback on the wrong link on my list, your reinsertion of the comments at Bishonen's talk page are a very bad idea. They are entitled to remove whatever they feel like and reverting their removal (twice now) is unlikely to lead to any positive outcome. I'm not going to remove the commentary myself but it would be worth your while considering what you expect to gain from this and going and removing it yourself. Amortias ( T)( C) 23:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Allow me to elaborate. Even if there is some sort of problem with Bishonen's use of an image, somebody else will surely notice and bring it up if the problem is significant. You need not get involved personally. If you engage in any further edit warring on User talk: Bishonen, as you have been doing [21] [22] [23] I will interpret your actions as purposeful harassment, and respond accordingly. Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply

What do you think you're doing on my page? See above. Are you after eight years here not aware that people can remove what they like from their own talkpage and it is not to be put back? It's difficult, as so often, to understand what you say; I have no idea what you mean by "Doug only" or "let him rip" (??). Rip? The photo on my page is from Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free images. See [24] and File:WMCON18 by Rehman - Sunday - Tour (9).jpg. Note especially the prominent licensing information in the latter place: the photographer wants to be credited if you use this file outside the Wikimedia Projects. Is that what you read — or, rather, read half of? Wikipedia is of course a Wikimedia project. If you harass me on my page again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 05:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC). reply

Sorry; as I am mostly focused on smaller maintainance work, I was merely aware of this ownership practise when it relates to automatic messages, not for serious personal comments. You probably know that archieving is preferred and that my explained revert of your rebuff was allowed. I did not violate 3RR. Also bear in mind that User:Gerda Arendt started the thread writing of a stolen image. I made a helpful recommendation (without stating I would agree with this vocabulary) for an admin who should not feel harassed by complience to rules in this respect. It does matter that people are depicted on it. Letting Doug Taylor r.i.p. seems to be the cleanest solution. If you read the license document in full, you see as well that the formulation isnt perfect but partly indirect. The limitation of the author's demand for attribution is not given bluntly. Joppa Chong ( talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that doesn't ping Gerda. If you want to be able to ping people, you may want to read WP:MENTION to see the requirements. Putting a link to a username into existing text won't work. Hope this helps. Bishonen | tålk 16:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC). reply

Thx. As she appears to be such a friendly person, I assume you dont want to disappoint her. However, you have to reconsider your attitude. Joppa Chong ( talk) 00:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey, I just reverted your revert on Austro-Prussian War in regards to Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia. His official name as used while a prince was Frederick William, not Frederick. This is not an option, it is a double name to be used as such and just writing Frederick is incorrect. It was shortened to Frederick as his regnal name when he became king, as was his to choose, but that had not happened yet. For your argument of being "confusing" I assume you mean that because of the Elector Frederick William of Hesse that is also mentioned in the article. For that, and argument you made that is understandable (even though both have different links and are preceded by different titles), I added "of Prussia", which you therefore can´t describe as "unneccessary". Hope that explains it for you so we can move on. Thanks ... GELongstreet ( talk) 17:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Why remove the lead image at Ibycus?

It is one of these almost public domain but do xyz pics. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 16:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kusile Power Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emalahleni Local Municipality.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply