Hello JArthur1984! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

		The Chinese Barnstar
		For your recent contributions to a variety of articles about China's economy and recent economic history. Thanks for making Wikipedia's coverage more detailed and informative! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Mx. Granger! I have seen your contributions in these areas as well and likewise appreciate them. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your timely and helpful edits on the lead section of Cultural Revolution, thank you so much! Zinderboff(talk) 13:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, thank you for raising the issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Chinese Barnstar
		I'm very lucky that I can contribute and learn while surrounded by editors like you. Thank you so much for your work on China-related topics, it's a real inspiration for me.

Thank you for your kind words. I likewise appreciate and learn from your efforts. It has been a pleasure to see the quality of China-related topics improve over the last few years.

		The Chinese Barnstar
		I was going to thank you long ago, but thank you for removing WP:CRYSTALBALL and speculation on the article about the Social Credit System!. Félix An (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your efforts to improve the page as well! JArthur1984 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

@ JArthur1984 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from one or more pages into Prabowo Subianto. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This edit I mean. Nobody (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s my material I wrote myself. It was relevant to multiple pages. To say “attribution: me” seems either at least unnecessary and strange, or at worst some kind of self-bragging.

I am aware of the rule and apply it when adapting material written by others. Is the general trend to apply it when it is self-written material too? I thought not. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would save time for copyright patrollers if you put in the edit summary where you wrote it first. If it isn't obvious where you copied it from, then it also isn't obvious whose text you copied. Sure, it isn't exactly a copyright problem if you wrote it yourself, but it would be easier to identify it, with an accurate edit summary. Nobody (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! I hadn’t considered that it could benefit copyright patrollers. I’ll do it. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Economy of China § Recent edits. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just put it up here not knowing you seem to already know about the talk. Take this as a correction to me error linking the discussion on my edit summary. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen. We were probably active simultaneously, is all. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section about foreign influence is completely subjective. Committee of 100 is an organization of American citizens. It's pretty xenophobic to include that in a "history" of the organization. The paragraph was not deleted it was just moved to a section that shows it as a challenge ... a challenge for a lot of American-based nonprofits tied to an immigrant group. USN1971 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is not in a "Criticism" section, I have no disagreement. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and likewise. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, hope you are well. I notice you reinstated the ^[who?] tag on Uyghurs lead section with the rationale of "A proponent should specify more particularly."

MOS:WEASEL states that words/phrases such as "scholars" that may be considered ambiguous "..may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution."

In this case there are clearly inline citations of scholarly articles (within the paragraph) that support the claim. Could you please advise how you feel this could be specified more particularly? Andygray110 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should specify in this area, because of the circular reportage problem: the estimate of 1-1.5 million is often sourced just back to a single scholar, Adrian Zenz. Who do these sources reference the one million estimate to, or are they original research on this point? JArthur1984 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the sources are based on an underlying source is not the issue; it's if the use of the tag is appropriate. If the usage fails the guidelines of MOS:WEASEL it shouldn't be used, and it does fail given there are sources present. Given those are secondary, unchallenged sources prominently included in the lead means they are currently considered reliable. If there is a question that those sources are unreliable, then that would be worthy of discussion on the article talk page (and if they were subsequently removed, leaving the "scholar" claim unsupported, then tag usage would be appropriate). Andygray110 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who do these sources reference the one million estimate to? JArthur1984 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant; unless discussed and consensus reached claiming otherwise, they are reliable sources. Andygray110 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is the WEASEL wording and need for attribution around the word "scholars", not the reliability of the sources. Since you don't know the answer to this question, you have no reason to believe that attribution is unnecessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your question - my point (which I have consistently referred to throughout this discussion) is whether the use of the ^[who?] tag was appropriate, which it wasn't given the presence of sources. I note a different tag has been added which is much more appropriate. Andygray110 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]