User talk:Storm598

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Template:Z187Halfadaniel (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Labor Party (Taiwan), you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit is not vandalism. Because the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China. Therefore, the Chinese nationalist party should be marked as the "Republic of China" and the Taiwanese nationalist party as "Taiwan".--Storm598 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at People First Party (Taiwan). Firestar464 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It's ridiculous and absurd. The TPP and KMT documents against Taiwan's independence also describe the political infobox as "Politics of the Republic of China," not as "Politics of Taiwan." So, can I change the "Politics of the Republic of China" section of the KMT and TPP documents to "Politics of Taiwan"? I was only trying to unify the standards because the standards themselves were jagged in the first place.--Storm598 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you checked the talk page but following more research I happen to agree with your assessments, though I think an edit note might go a long way: a lot of people see Taiwan get replaced by something with China and panic (Province of PRC, etc.). Let me know what I can do to help/if you want to discuss further on standardization of Taiwan politics related articles; if we're doing one, we might as well do them all. Halfadaniel (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right-wing populism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People Power Party. 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) 06:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories

May I ask why you removed all categories from a bunch of political parties and decided to nest those categories inside some... other shell category? This does not seem to be standard practice but maybe I'm wrong. DrIdiot (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See, for example, the categories for Democratic_Party_(United_States) DrIdiot (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I moved because I thought the categories were overlapping, was it my fault?--Storm598 (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing to me too, but I think what has been done is that "DPP article" now has its own category (the "DPP category"), and the DPP category is inside a bunch of other categories. However, this isn't transitive -- i.e. the previous other categories that the DPP article belonged to no longer show up on the article page. I think it's best if those categories remain so readers can click on them directly (and this seems to be the practice elsewhere, e.g. on the Democratic Party of USA page, which is pretty well-trafficked so I'd trust it as a standard). If you agree, would you mind changing back other instances where you've done this? DrIdiot (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion.--Storm598 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

English variants

Hi Storm598, I noticed that in some of your recent edits, you changed some of the English variants in some articles (specifically changing "center" to "centre"). While there's nothing wrong with such edits, they're also usually considered unnecessary (see MOS:RETAIN). You can leave your edits in place, but I just thought I should let you know. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tuesday Group

added links pointing to New Republic and The Hill

Blue Dog Coalition

added a link pointing to The Hill

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuesday Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Justice Party (South Korea), you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've never done disruptive editing. Please participate in the Talk first and decide.--Storm598 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tuesday Group; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aasim (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aasim (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tuesday Group

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Daiichi1 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia must remain neutral. However, 'Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment' classification in documents related to Korea is being applied to the extent that it is against NPOV. However, in documents related to Japan, 'Category:Anti-Korean Sentiment' applies only to very few documents. If you look at the documents that were previously classified as Category: Anti-Japanese Sentiment, I think they are often from no source or objective.--Storm598 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Then add the 'category:Anti-korean' sentiment to articles you think it belongs to instead of removing the 'Anti-Japanese sentiment' category from articles it belongs on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiichi1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea

Why are you removing this category from article for which it is obviously appropriate? I see that many of your edits doing this have been reverted. When you look at your contributions page and see edit after edit has been reverted by other editors, you should be taking in the message that your editing is not improving Wikipedia.

The same goes for your edits to political parties. They are in large part not supported by the articles. ALL CATEGORIES MUST BE SUPPORTED BY INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE. I will be reverting many of these as well.

Your talk page does not exactly show a lot of productive editing in the 3 months you've been here, exactly the opposite I would suggest that you re-evaluate your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)