User talk:Zongqi
Hello, Zongqi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
Could you please explain these two edits?
Could you please explain these two edits?
Zongqi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit
Johnydiamond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit
I find it odd that two editors would try to add the same empty section heading. Are you by any chance editing with two different usernames? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
!!??pls Prat2406Ac13 (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Onmyōdō, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gogyo. 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) 06:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glossary of Shinto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gogyo.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of forms of alternative medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wuxing.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
A lengthy welcome
Hi Zongqi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RexxS (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)I am not sure why I got blocked. I enjoy edditing on wiki. I have not been abusive to any other editor and are happy to talk further to develop my skills for edditing.
Zongqi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Zongqi (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Closing redundant appeal. MER-C 11:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Zongqi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not sure why I got blocked. I enjoy edditing on wiki. I have not been abusive to any other editor and are happy to talk further to develop my skills for edditing. Zongqi (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In order to be unblocked, you must demonstrate to us that you understand why you were blocked and how your editing will change in response. You haven't done that. Also, you only need one open unblock request. MER-C 11:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
- Please review your multiple contributions at Talk:Ayurveda. That article and its talk page is under WP:discretionary sanctions and editors are required to behave to the highest standards. I've added an alert above so that you can review those sanctions and requirements. Your block is not a DS block, but you need to be aware of the sanctions if you are to be unblocked.
- Then review WP:SEEALSO to gain an understanding of what you are asking editors to do at Ayurveda.
- You replied that it is "self-evident" when asked by Hob Gadling why Wuxing (Chinese philosophy) should be added to the See also section of Ayurveda. That is not a helpful reply to a reasonable question. You then ignored Black Kite's equally reasonable request to explain.
- Having failed to satisfactorily explain why the link should be added, you then decided to ask the questioners why it should not be added. That is a classic sealioning and not behaviour expected on an article under sanctions. The onus is always on the person wishing to add content to provide policy-compliant reasons. You will know from reading WP:SEEALSO that it's not a collection of indiscriminate links to other articles that are vaguely similar to the article, but to articles that are related.
- Looking at your contributions, you seem fixated on adding all sorts of links in See also sections, apparently to promote pseudoscientific theories.
- Finally you replied to Guy Macon that an addition to a page is not a change! At that point, you have exhausted the patience of the good-faith editors who spend valuable time attempting to keep debate at that page at a sensible level. Nobody has to explain to you how Wuxing and Ayurveda are not related. The onus has always been on you to convince other editors that they are.
- Now, your behaviour has become tendentious, and I've withdrawn your editing privileges until you can convince me or another admin that you understand the policies and guidelines governing See also sections, the discretionary sanctions that apply to all pseudoscientific topics, and the behaviour required on affected talk pages. --RexxS (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Not aware of this, I will be explicit in my explanations and answer questions in the future. Thankyou for the information and look forward to working more constructivley as part of the team. Zongqi (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, to clarify that I will in the future, when proposing a change to a page I will give examples and references to support the proposed changes or additions, answer questions to be informative and accept with grace the consensus of editors on page. I am learning how wiki works and posted my request first without including my reason, so I resubmitted it. I look forward to resuming and increasing my editing knowledge to continue my speciality additions to the encyclopaedia. Thankyou for your consideration. Zongqi (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @RexxS: It seems moot at this point, but it is perhaps of note that there is also a history of tendentious editing from this user at the Shinto article as well, incorporating edit warring and the same sort of (non)argumentation at the Talk Page. This should be taken into consideration if they make further requests for unblocking. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Midnightblueowl: I haven't given up on the possibility that Zongqi could become a useful contributor, if they can adjust their perspective to the realities of editing on Wikipedia. So I thank you for your observations about Shinto and I recommend to Zongqi that they consider how they can avoid the sort of behaviour in articles and talk pages that has led to the present position. --RexxS (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thankyou for your advice. I think also that you should also look at the outcome of the edditing. We were all commended by other editors for being amicable. In this instance the reference material that I provided was not suitable. I made a bold edit on good faith. I still intend to revisit that page and add more information about medicine as decided and agreed by other editors for that page. I am still new to wiki and where is the the best place to have a discussion, in the sandbox or on the talk of the page. Regards. Zongqi (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: Hello, thankyou for your advice. I think also that you should also look at the outcome of the edditing. We were all commended by other editors for being amicable. In this instance the reference material that I provided was not suitable. I made a bold edit on good faith. I still intend to revisit that page and add more information about medicine as decided and agreed by other editors for that page. I am still new to wiki and where is the the best place to have a discussion, in the sandbox or on the talk of the page. @Rexxs: Regards Zongqi (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello @RexxS: please read my above response to Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs), I am still wishing to have clarity on where it is suitable to have a decision about material being added to a page. I have seen many talk pages on Wikipedia and some become very heated without a block being imposed. I am aware that I am in communication with some very skilled and knowledgable editors on the Ayurveda page, my suggestion for the addition of Wyxing being added to the see also section is a reasonable inclusion as this philosophy is also foundational in Traditional Chinese medicine. As is the Three Doshos and Five elements to Ayurvedic Medicine this can be qualified by studying the inclusions under the principles and terminology section on page. In conclusion I would also like to mention the reason that I make many additions to East Asian Medicine, philosophy and religion is this is my speciality and I have made many valuable addition to the encyclopaedia in my short editorial history and at times have learnt the hard way. I hope that our combined experience and expertise can improve and add to the Wikipedia encyclopaedia for future generations to come. I look forward to your response. Zongqi (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure RexxS will have their own points to make, based on their observation of the Ayurveda page, but from my experience at the Shinto page I would have to conclude that your edits were tendentious, Zongqi. You weren't abusive or a deliberate vandal, but your pattern of editing was disruptive and put a burden on other editors' time. You were edit warring to get material you wanted into the article, you were citing material from websites that just weren't Reliable Sources, you changed article text that was already cited to Reliable Sources so that it said something quite different, and when you did cite a Reliable Source you misrepresented what it actually claimed quite dramatically. You were pushing WP:Fringe theories based largely on your own personal interpretation of traditional East Asian religious-healing practices, rather than what the accredited experts on the subject actually say. When there were attempts made to engage with you at the Talk Page, you seemed to ignore what other editors were explaining and repeated yourself quite a bit, which felt like a failure or refusal to "get the point". From the looks of things, you've repeated some of these behaviours over at other pages, such as Ayurveda, despite the fact that other editors have repeatedly raised concerns with you. No one seems to doubt your good intentions, Zongqi, nor your enthusiasm, but at Wikipedia that just isn't enough. You have to be able to read, understand, and appropriately cite the Reliable Sources, while abiding by a wide range of regulations. That's how a constructive editor works, and is what you have to demonstrate in order to have your editing privileges restored by an administrator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zongqi, I don't have much to add to whatMidnightblueowl has said, other than I'm disappointed that you've still not grasped that you are required to edit cautiously on any pages subject to discretionary sanctions. The existence of heated discussion on some talk pages is not a licence to do the same on every talk page. If other editors are telling you that they see no relevant connection between Ayrveda (a pseudoscientific system of Indian medicine) and Wuxing (a system of Chinese philosophy), you either need to explain clearly and succinctly what you think the relationship is or drop the issue. You did neither of these, and I am concerned that your fluency in English is not sufficient for you to make your arguments clear. Not knowing that an 'addition' is a 'change' is worrying; and using it as an argument with other editors is unforgivable. Having a constructive discussion about what material should be included on a page is fine; repeating the same arguments that others do not accept is not.
- If you are to be unblocked, I believe you will have to show an understanding of why you found it difficult to communicate with other editors, and a how you intend to modify your editing to avoid that in future. --RexxS (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Rexxs: Exemplary behaviour from {{|Example}},
Zongqi (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@RexxS: As I have mentioned above I do not intend to edit without explanation in the future on a page including subjects with discretionary sanctions.Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) When it comes to my additions to Shinto my sources were not just web pages but also a book including the Gogyo Gogen doctrine this theory there are many sects of Shinto that use this doctrine including the grand Shrine in America, is not my own and I decided to leave it and move on, as religious pages can be contentious. The other entry on that page was the addition of the Kanji ( Japanese character) for the word Shinto itself,that was also a point of contention???. As I have said I am learning Wikipedia and have taken the example from other not so desirable talk pages, I have the information now and will address where I can improve and help others when I see they need to learn the same lesions, I have also contributed to the encyclopaedia and would like to have the opportunity to add other new contrivertial but factual information in the future, my English is not that bad only my computer skills. Zongqi (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. You give me the impression that you will be far more circumspect when editing in contentious areas, and that you understand better what areas are going to be considered contentious. I am prepared to extend the assumption of good faith and unblock you to give you an opportunity to show how you will improve your interactions and contributions. I will do this on the understanding that if you cause similar problems in the future, you are very likely to have your editing privileges removed for a lengthy period. Please don't let me and yourself down. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
About your editing on ancient Chinese medicine
Do not advertise them on unrelated pages using sources about ancient Chinese medicine. You are promoting Chinese medicine at Ikigai and Shikigami using fake sources.--Green cigarette (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Please take it to talk on specific page. @Green cigarette:, Zongqi (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your inappropriate edits have been repeated on multiple pages, so I wrote it here.--Green cigarette (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Zplease take it to talk page on specific page thank you. If you are talking about ikiga, the eddits were made with from links on Wikipedia with sound citations. Ikigai is in my opinion watered down rewritten classical medicine. your reasons for reverting eddits to not have any weight. This page and consent is verging on Plagiarism and unethical @Green cigarette: Zongqi (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't blame me for your own vandalism. Do you have anything to say about my comments on Talk: Ikigai?--Green cigarette (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Green cigarette: Once again please keep your comments and communication to the talk page on page, review your edits and deletions. Thankyou. Zongqi (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RexxS (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)- Your contributions since your unblock show you have gone straight back to your previous behaviour. You have compounded that by multiple instances of calling other editors' edits "vandalism". WP:Vandalism makes it clear that no edit made in good-faith can be considered vandalism, and that groundless accusations are considered personal attacks. I no longer believe that you are able to contribute to Wikipedia constructively and therefore I have reinstated your block. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Rexxs: You need to look back in the other editors history, how many days have they been editing?. What was their first edit and what had the deleted on page. I asked for @Green cigarette: to take it to talk page on many occasions before just removing edits. What is the process here please explain. Zongqi (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Did you ever read WP:Guide to appealing blocks? Did you miss the section WP:NOTTHEM? The process is that if you want to dispute edits, you do it on the article talk page. Discussions about behaviour belong on editors' talk pages. Now, please confine your edits on this page to addressing your block. Using it to disparage other editors is likely to lead to your talk page access being removed. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok so I ask a New editor that has just come on to Wikipedia to stop repetadly targeting the edits that I have done on multiple pages. Ok you need to look at the history and the likelyhood that a New editor would have that much ability. So for me I am blocked for asking questions on Ayurvedic, not edditing, now blocked for asking others to please stop reverting or removing my work without discussing it on talk first and stop leaving messages on my talk page. I was polite but directive trying to not get into a edit war. The first edit that this user did on Wikipedia 15days ago was on the Bujutsu page deleting Japanese war crimes against Chinese. @RexxS:, Zongqi (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop personal attacks on me. I edited it because the image of the Nanjing Massacre did not match the text and it was not related to the Japanese war propaganda and Bushido. It was Kamikaze that matched the text and was related to Bushido's idea, so I changed it to a more suitable picture.--Green cigarette (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Zongqi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have tried to direct a new editor to stop deleting my edits without first discusing problems on the talk page,the editor continued to in my opinion Vandilize pages and not listen to guidance. Zongqi (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello @Green cigarette: As I have said from the start if you want to delete material on page please take it to talk before you delete the time and effort of other editors contributions. Your page talk has already been cleared of our conversation, then that editor went on to remove my latest eddits from another page. about Ikigai vandalism and that it's conception is almost verging on plagiarized traditional medical information. The cited Critique section that you deleted is from Dan Buettner"s page that is referenced on the ikigai page, is critical also of his theory. The study of longevity paper that is cited also on ikigai page, supporting longevity only records a minimal finding in women and not men, you also removed my references on page to this also. Zongqi (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 40392
UTRS appeal #40392 is now open. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 40471
This user has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #40471 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)