Archives

Archive 1.

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Thanks for uploading File:Longxiangqiao station diagram.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 11:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not a social network, but I am sorry for your loss. One thing I would say, is that while I personally did not agree with many of his policies, it is extremely admirable and something more politicians should follow is the example he set by stepping aside prior to becoming voted out. When any elected official looses the confidence of the people who elected him, they should step aside and let new leadership come in. I'm not sure this has ever been done at the national level in the US, but it really does hamstring a party when the old guard refuses to back down and let the younger people of the party try to lead sooner. The democratic party in the US learned that lesson the hard way this last election. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I didn't mean to say it regretfully. I just meant to say that the era of Mr. Trudeau has simply ended. I think it was time for him to leave anyways. People really do get tired of one person staying up there for so long (and obviously many of his policies were not well-received). Félix An (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is congratulations a more appropriate response? If so, congrats on the change! And regardless of bias/pov towards Mr. Trudeau, it was good to see a person exit when it was time (although probably for some it should have come sooner), at least it was before a vote of no-confidence. I wish more politicians followed that at a minimum. TiggerJay (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at Talk:Taiwan. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Airing your political opinion does not advance the encyclopedia. Reminder that you may not always agree with facts that Wikipedia presents you. Taiwan as a topic especially presents facts that could contradict learnings or frameworks acquired elsewhere, and the talk page gets frequent and disruptive edit requests without rationale or sources. Butterdiplomat (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you. However, the comment was made in regards to editing the article, and not to socialize generally. Félix An (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was made to air your personal feelings about certain political realities, even if you now claim it was not the intention. The comment was neither related to editing nor improving the encyclopedia. As long as you are aware of the disruptive requests or comments that frequent the Taiwan talk page and related articles, and consciously refrain from adding to the disruption, I think you will find everyone’s time more pleasant and used more productively. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Félix An (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I’m reaching out to request an unblock, as it’s been several months since my last request. I was blocked after responding to allegations by User:Kringle Claus on their talk page, and I genuinely regret if my actions came across as disruptive or offensive - that wasn’t my intention at all. I was just trying to explain my side of things, and I’m sorry if it caused any issues. I don’t have any conflict of interest with Santa- or Christmas-related businesses or organizations, and I don’t hold any grudges against Claus or their website. Moving forward, I’ll minimize my editing around "emailSanta.com" to avoid any conflicts. On a separate note, the block has also prevented me from accessing the Wikipedia Library, which I’ve used in the past for research journals and recently needed again for my grad thesis, since my university, Zhejiang University, lacks access to some English-language resources. I would have waited longer before resubmitting this block request, but my recent need for the Wikipedia Library has brought this block to my attention. I’d really appreciate regaining access to both editing and the Library, and I promise to be more mindful of Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thanks for considering this, and I apologize again for any trouble I caused. Félix An (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On the one hand, you say you have no conflict of interest. On the other hand, you say you'll "minimize my editing around "emailSanta.com" to avoid any conflicts". These statements directly contradict each other. Finally, you talk about the Wikipedia Library. This is not relevant to your block. Yamla (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 User:Yamla, thank you for your feedback, and I apologize for the confusion in my phrasing. To clarify, I do not have a conflict of interest (as in "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity"). What I intended to say was that I would minimize editing around "emailSanta.com" to avoid any potential conflicts (as in "disagreements or disputes") with other editors, not because I have a personal stake in the matter. I recognize that my earlier wording was unclear, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

Regarding the Wikipedia Library (TWL), I understand that my block is not directly related to TWL access. However, as Writ_Keeper explained to me on IRC:

"Hi, FelixAn, I'm sorry that your partial block prevents access to TWL; that's a pretty common complaint among editors with a partial block, and honestly it doesn't seem fair or right to me. I've made a separate thread with the WMF person responsible for the TWL to see if that behavior can be changed (though presumably that would take a long time and a large community discussion to actually implement)."

While I recognize that this is a separate issue, the restriction on TWL access due to my partial block has been a significant challenge, particularly for my academic research. My mention of TWL was not intended to conflate the two issues but to explain why I am seeking an unblock at this time.

Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your patience as I work to address these concerns. I remain committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and contributing constructively. Félix An (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Félix An (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I’m reaching out to request an unblock, as it’s been several months since my last request. I was blocked after responding to allegations by User:Kringle Claus on their talk page, and I genuinely regret if my actions came across as disruptive or offensive - that wasn’t my intention at all. I was just trying to explain my side of things, and I’m sorry if it caused any issues. I don’t have any conflict of interest with Santa- or Christmas-related businesses or organizations, and I don’t hold any grudges against Claus or their website. Moving forward, I’ll minimize my editing around "emailSanta.com" to avoid any conflicts. On a separate note, the block has also prevented me from accessing the Wikipedia Library, which I’ve used in the past for research journals and recently needed again for my grad thesis, since my university, Zhejiang University, lacks access to some English-language resources. I would have waited longer before resubmitting this block request, but my recent need for the Wikipedia Library has brought this block to my attention. I’d really appreciate regaining access to both editing and the Library, and I promise to be more mindful of Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Additional clarification added above:

To clarify, I do not have a conflict of interest (as in "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity"). What I intended to say was that I would minimize editing around "emailSanta.com" to avoid any potential conflicts (as in "disagreements or disputes") with other editors, not because I have a personal stake in the matter.

Regarding the Wikipedia Library (TWL), I understand that my block is not directly related to TWL access. However, as Writ_Keeper explained to me on IRC: "Hi, FelixAn, I'm sorry that your partial block prevents access to TWL; that's a pretty common complaint among editors with a partial block, and honestly it doesn't seem fair or right to me. I've made a separate thread with the WMF person responsible for the TWL to see if that behavior can be changed (though presumably that would take a long time and a large community discussion to actually implement)."

While I recognize that this is a separate issue, the restriction on TWL access due to my partial block has been a significant challenge, particularly for my academic research. My mention of TWL was not intended to conflate the two issues but to explain why I am seeking an unblock at this time.

Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your patience as I work to address these concerns. I remain committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and contributing constructively.

Accept reason:

The user has agreed to a topic ban from all things Santa-related. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Félix An (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The question that is most likely to be asked is why "minimize" not "eliminate"? If you want to edit that topic area again you should provide compelling reasons that you should be allowed to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Making minor edits (formatting, grammar, etc.) would be fine and uncontroversial. Félix An (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But why do you want to make those edits? Why not just walk away? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I repeat what I said in December: "I think Wikipedia would be best off if you had a topic ban on all things Santa-related." Why not make it easy on yourself? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats more or less the same advice I would offer, there seems to be an easy path to an unblock if you would agree to voluntarily refrain from editing Santa related pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have learned my lesson. It is hard to express through text on a screen, but if you were to sit down and have a chat with me, you would understand. I don’t want to live with a bad record for my entire life. Since my account is under my real name, I would feel very ashamed of myself if I had a permanent ban on a certain topic. If an expiry date (even as long as several years) was set on the topic ban after I’m unblocked, I would feel better about it and would not feel that bad, knowing that I would still be forgiven one day. Félix An (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Topic bans are not carved in stone and are very frequently lifted down the road. You have two very respected editors giving you good advice on getting unblocked quickly, and I think it would be a poor choice to not take the advice because of some theoretical concern about not getting a narrow topic ban lifted in two years. If you simply wait for the day that an admin unblocks you with no prior conditions, you may end up getting nothing you want; not getting unblocked and not having Library access. As topic bans go, it's an easy one to not violate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And it doesn't really go on your "official record"; unlike the current block, it's pretty much honor system. I would unblock immediately if you agree to a topic ban on all things Santa-related. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK then, as User:CoffeeCrumbs said, I will accept the offer and will voluntarily topic-ban myself from Santa-related articles until further notice. User:Jpgordon, you can do the honours. 😉 Félix An (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Taiwan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:SanVitoresII. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Safari Open Using Rosetta.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]