Sonata for Keyboard Four-hands in C major K. 521 (Mozart), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GeneralPoxter (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yu Wensheng has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply does not pass WP:GNG, case of WP:BIO1E. Would have redirected to the article on the protests, except he's not even mentioned there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Thanks for making the notice. I have expanded the article significantly since, and I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E now. Welcome to take a look and your suggestions are always appreciated. Best, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas Meng,

Thank you for creating Yu Wensheng.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The currently cited sources appear to be campaigning on behalf of the article's subject, and the text of the article is not neutrally phrased. The article could be improved by adding more neutral content from reliable sources; I conducted a preliminary internet search and found several promising sources such as [1], [2]

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Thank you very much for your suggestions. I have included the two sources you provided and have significantly improved the neutrality of the article. Welcome to have a look! Thanks again, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You restored this text to the Andy Ngo article.[[3]] There is a related discussion here[[4]]. Springee (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springee, thanks for letting me know. Sorry I've been busy with schoolwork for the past few weeks and haven't had time to participate. I will take a more thorough look at this issue and drop my comment/edit where appropriate.

Thanks, Thomas Meng (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Radio Free Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Burke. 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) 05:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ni Yulan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aussie Article Writer -- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the RfC on Radio Free Asia so that the questions asked and subsequent surveying are more clear. Please move your response to the category of your choice if you wish to do so, and apologies for the formatting. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2021 (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 Requesting Procedural Close by administrator at Talk:Radio Free Asia, per WP:GS/UYGHUR. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ni Yulan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ni Yulan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aussie Article Writer -- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Women in Green wikiproject would like to add Ni Yulan to the listed GA articles here. Would you be alright with this? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aussie Article Writer: Yeah for sure! Thanks for letting me know :) Thomas Meng (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ni Yulan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that civil-rights lawyer Ni Yulan, sentenced after recording the forced demolition of homes to make way for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, was prevented from leaving China to accept awards? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ni Yulan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ni Yulan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying Maile66 :) Thomas Meng (talk) 03:05, 11 October 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	恭喜发财！
Happy Chinese New Year!

🐯🐯🐯 — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: Happy Chinese new year to you as well! 🐯 Thomas Meng (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Need independent secondary sourcing

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pytest and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pytest, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas Meng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slywriter: thanks for taking the time to review Draft:Pytest. I've read your comment and want to know more about the specific ways of improvement. Since pytest is the most popular testing framework in Python, I do think it's worth creating a Wikipedia aritcle for. Currently there are five independent sources cited: two published books, one article from the developers at DropBox, one from Real Python, another from Python Insight. The other two are primary sources from the pytest official documentation.

There are more independent sources that cover pytest. But I want to know exatly which direction I should make the article go before I proceed. Could you be a little more specific? (same comment at your talk page; please reply at whichever place that's more convenient for you)Thomas Meng (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a book/article that isn't a quick start guide. Anything that looks like a reliable source wrote about pytest without personal gain from writing about it. Dropbox isn't quite a reliable source, at least for notability. Python Insight and Real Python look to be blogs, so also not ideal for Wikipedia notability.

I took a second look and what jumps at me is that its clearly notable in the Python community, but less clear that it has notability as wikipedia states it. I do think its extremely close to the line and another independent source or two would put it over. Hope that makes senseSlywriter (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter: Thank you for explaining. I just added two more sources along with some more content on pytest's notable features. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pytest, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pytest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parametrization.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Pytest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the notice. The article is in the process of being improved based on latest suggestions given on the nomination page. More improvments will come shortly, and when everything's ready, I'll reply back on that page. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

19:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pytest you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Pytest you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pytest for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

20:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

02:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Pytest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The article Pytest you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pytest for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

19:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

On 21 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pytest, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the software-testing framework pytest has been described as a key ecosystem project for the Python programming language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pytest. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pytest), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

21:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

21:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

00:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

23:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

01:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:01, 28 November 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 22:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited How the Red Sun Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chen Yi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited How the Red Sun Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page May Fourth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited How the Red Sun Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bohai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article How the Red Sun Rose you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:How the Red Sun Rose and Talk:How the Red Sun Rose/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 05:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 13:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 14:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article How the Red Sun Rose you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:How the Red Sun Rose for comments about the article, and Talk:How the Red Sun Rose/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Falun Gong, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:07, 27 November 2023 (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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-American sentiment in mainland China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 02:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article How the Red Sun Rose, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at least three historians asserted How the Red Sun Rose to have rendered outdated the scholarly understanding of the Yan'an Rectification Movement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/How the Red Sun Rose. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, How the Red Sun Rose), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Falun Gong, 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.

Ok here is the correct template. Apologies for the mess-up. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please observe the following guidelines:

A. WP:ROWN policy suggests only to revert when necessary. This is narrowly construed to mean disruptive editing or vandalism, not when your perception of a particular policy conflicts with the content expressed in a given edit.

B. WP:REVEXP suggests to properly discuss causes for revisions or disputes with edit content in the Talk page; per experience, it is generally considered good practice to notify the original editor that a dispute with their content is warranted. I have yet to see an editor mass/spam-cite unspecific policy in the edit summary as a basis for a revert.

C. The policies you cite, by the nature of your conduct, are difficult to connect to the edit specified. However, it is challenging at first glance to observe how any of them, save potentially for "taking opinion article as fact" relate to the content of the article.

D. It appears to me that you are an active contributor to pages relating to Human rights in China. I commend you for your effort, but must remind you that content that may be contrary to your personal political views does not automatically provide grounds to delete them, especially when cited.

E. Potential errors in citing allow room for discussion and the potential addition of different sources. Your removal of eight separate sources, each of them published by fairly reputable outlets, is inconsistent with the general principle of improving Wikipedia instead of working unconstructively and destructively against NPOV statements that you may disagree with.

F. It is consistent with NPOV policy to observe that a particular organization has been the subject of critique. The volume of reasonably reputable sources cited is sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case for relevance and inclusion.

G. It may do you service to review the policies you have cited. G(1). WP:NOR "means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". This is obviously inconsistent with the number and quality of published sources cited. G(2). Relating to (E) and WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE suggests that when "reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance" - this is what is performed in the article given the conflicting nature of reliable sources. G(3). WP:UNDUE *expressly* notes that "[n]eutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". This runs contrary to your behavior noted in the reversion of the edit. The sources themselves are broadly reliable. See (H).

H. Given the broadly reliable nature of the sources, and the appropriate citing of them within the context of the relevant content in the body of the article, it is more appropriate to challenge individual citations instead of the entire edit, which also includes numerous additions to the templates used in the article, especially relevant ones given the pamphlet-like reading of the latter half of the article.

I. If you have qualms with the *quality* of a source, you are welcome to find a better source (of which there are many) that corroborate the argument. Your personal disagreement with the content of the edit does not grant you license to remove well-cited content from the article.

I welcome discussion and input to the content of the article. This may take place on the talkspace, where it is generally considered good practice to ping relevant editors when the discussions take place. Before then, I hope you continue to maintain an impartial perspective on article content and are capable of separating content/citation disputes from your personal political views. Augend (drop a line) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Augend: I appreciate you taking the time to post such a long message for me. From what I understood, your main points are that your edit was sufficiently cited and that WP:NOR doesn't apply, and that I should address individual citations rather than reverting your entire edit. To address your concerns, I'll explain each part of your edit and how it violates to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

You added "The Falun Gong has also received substantial criticism and heavy scrutiny by observers for its

1. "[...] extreme founder veneration" and cited Adam Frank's book chapter to justify. The cited work does not appear to support the claim. It says (p.256):

   Even before the crackdown, differing degrees of commitment to Li Hongzhi and the manner in which followers publicly demonstrated that commitment sometimes prompted disagreement. Judy, for example, criticized those who worshiped Li Hongzhi too zealously, noting “Master Li said ‘treat me as a human.’” Freddy agreed, pointing out that far from seeking worshipers, Li admonished followers to not “get caught up in the images. Don’t fall into attachments"

   This shows that even among Falun Gong practitioners, opinions differ on founder veneration, and Li himself discourages that.
2. "[...] use of psychological abuse against adherents". You cited a New Yorker article and an opinion piece to justify. But nowhere does the New Yorker article say it uses psychological abuse against adherents, and the opinion article cannot be stated as fact. In fact, one of your other references, SF Chronicle, says that journalists and researchers who have written about the movement say it has no record of using abuse or coercion.
3. "[...] use of guilt and emotional warfare to secure donations from followers". You cited an SF Chronicle article and an article by David Silverman (activist) (activist for atheism, neither scholar nor journalist). But neither source justifies the added claim. While the SF Chronicle noted that FG practitioners volunteer their time to promote Shen Yun, it did not say that they donate money; it implied that advertising costs came from ticket sales revenue, as confirmed by Andrew Junker in his Cambridge University Press book: local practitioners pay for the venue and promotion costs and sell the tickets. After expenses are covered through ticket sales, proceeds go to Shen Yun
4. "[...] influence operations to secure United States government contracts, thereby increasing its revenue using US federal funds." You cited a WaPo that says the U.S. government gave funding to firewall circumvention tools developed by Falun Gong practitioners. The article mentioned Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz advocating for Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIFC) to receive funding, but it did not say that Horowitz was a Falun Gong practitioner. The article does not support the broad claim that "Falun Gong used influence operations to secure government contracts". Also, the funding was provided to GIFC, not to Falun Gong per se.

__________________

Other than the above issues with WP:NOR, your edit has some issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV

• You changed "Falun Gong experiences repression in China" to "Falun Gong has been notable in receiving substantial government scrutiny in China", but sources overwhelmingly describe the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China as persecution or repression. We can't call well-documented torture and school expulsion due to one's peaceful belief in Falun Gong "government scrutiny". (Source: last article in this series https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/ian-johnson)
• You changed "[Falun Gong] criticizes the purportedly self-imposed limits of modern science" to "whilst denying the truthfulness of science". But criticizing science's limitations is not the same as denying its truthfulness.
• You added "involvement with political information operations and disinformation campaigns in the United States and Europe." You cited two media articles about The Epoch Times. The newspaper does not represent Falun Gong, and these two articles did not generalize ET's coverage to the entire Falun Gong community, whose vast majority of practitioners are in China and have no connections with ET.
• You inserted a COI tag without explanation, but template policy says that Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.

I hope that the above addressed your concerns. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I have in large part responded to some of the counterclaims on the article talk. For convenience in communications let us use that forum instead. Please note that I am traveling and it is not convenient for me to host content discussions at length. We may disagree on wording or specific approaches but I trust you will exercise good faith given the sources brought forth. These sources are in large part reliable and identify substantial concerns that appear widespread about this movement and the beliefs they exercise. I believe they are eligible for inclusion instead of outright excision.Augend (drop a line) 07:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Yulan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Augend (drop a line) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cao Shunli.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:04, 12 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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I recently posted at WikiProject Human rights about the lack of activity on the project and its being labeled as "semi-active". I noticed that you are a member of the project, and would like to get your input if possible. See my post on the Talk page, and if you have insight into possibly reviving the project or have any thoughts about it, feel free to comment. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]