User talk:DrIdiot

Welcome!

Hello, DrIdiot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! SqueakBox 03:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete comments. Append only (use the "+" link at the top). Thanks.

Lithuania–Taiwan relations — Passing Comments

Hi DrIdiot, I see that you are doing good work to edit Lithuania–Taiwan relations. I must say, though, that the two IP users whom you are essentially edit-warring with... are probably both going to be blocked, eventually. Not right now, but in a few days I suspect, things could get extremely messy (even more so than they are now). Both users are currently involved in an ANI case involving myself on the charge of harassment, and both users have essentially already been blacklisted from the article China–Lithuania relations by David Gerard due to vandalism and various other varieties of misconduct. With all of this being said, I advise that you take a step back from the Lithuania–Taiwan relations article so as to not implicate yourself in any wrongdoing involving conflict with these two IP users. An edit-war takes two to tango. I think we should seek administrator involvement promptly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of the two IP users at Lithuania–Taiwan relations

I will say that I'm positive that there's a 100% chance of both users getting perma-blocked or banned without hesitation once an administrator discovers what has occurred at this article. The amount of incoherence and insanity being displayed in those edits (and through the behaviour surrounding those edits) is simply astonishing. I've actually never encountered someone so unhinged on Wikipedia before... Honestly, don't waste your time on that article... Just wait for the administrators to arrive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every single wrongdoing that the owner of the two IP accounts has accused others of committing (e.g. vandalism, editorialising, personal attacks, etc.)... they themselves have done tenfold. The amount of cognitive dissonance being displayed here honestly hurts my brain. I'm going to bed now... Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "two users" are actually the same person

I'm not sure whether you're aware of this, but IP user 195.135.49.168 and IP user 139.47.34.245 are the same person. They've been trying to deny it via both accounts, but it's just so extremely obvious to me that they are the same person based on the ways that they talk and behave. I've noticed for example that, due to an extreme level of "salt" as a result of being scolded by me at both of their talk pages, the person who owns both accounts has adopted some of my own distinctive terminologies, such as employing the specific words "disingenuous" and "(not) convincing". They seem to have a pattern of accusing everyone else of committing wrongdoings that they themself are clearly the most guilty of committing. So, if I've previously stated that their edits were "disingenuous" and "not convincing", then of course they're going to go around accusing everyone else of being disingenuous and not convincing. The pattern of behaviour is plain to see... There is absolutely no subtlety to this person's wrongdoings. They just commit wrongdoings right out in the open for everyone to see, and the only thing obscuring their wrongdoings is the sheer volume of commentary (both the size and number of their edits) that they've been spewing out... i.e. spam. At this point, their worst wrongdoing has been spam. The articles and talk pages that they've touched have all become incomprehensible within a matter of just two days. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the description of historical significance for the Kuomintang

I have to be clear that I did not make that “dummy claim”, “the two major parties in China” phrase has long been existing in the context even before my edits, and was even shown in the first paragraph [1] as well as the second paragraph of Chinese communist party in the head article. The works I did is merely rephrasing from the previous version and I did not create anything that never happened. 123.192.182.76 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@123.192.182.76: That's okay, I am not saying it is your claim. I'm just disputing the edit, whoever made it originally. Perhaps the confusion is "dummy edit" -- that just means I made an edit with no content (e.g. insert a space bar) to leave a comment, i.e. my comment is the "dummy edit" (see Help:Dummy_edit). DrIdiot (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Season (Taiwanese film) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, My Favorite Season (Taiwanese film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: Did you see the talk page for the article? Could you respond to the points I made there re:notability? It was released in 1985, got a restoration by the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute, and then a screening at a film festival in 2022. This is explicitly stated in the sources. DrIdiot (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an attribute that generally indicates required sources are likely to exist. It does not negate the need for sources. I'd like to see further significant coverage of the film - 1985 is recent enough that there ought be reviews in newspaper databases and more coverage of its restoration and screening. In almost all circumstances, there needs to be a good number of reliable sources before a topic can be considered for inclusion. Note, I did not nominate the article for deletion. It is merely draftified. Nothing prevents you from moving the article back. You do not even need my approval to move it back - though be warned the last time someone did not drafitfy after I asked them too, someone else then nominated the article for deletion. Drafifying is a soft touch option, allowing an article without sufficient sourcing to be incubated till it is fully baked, then put back into main when ready. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: In 1985, all media in Taiwan was print media, and unlike in the US, none of it is archived online. Also unlike the US, there are no Taiwanese trade magazines in film such as Variety, and domestic film restoration is in its infancy (A Brighter Summer Day was only restored in the last five years or so!). Just sampling a few movies in List_of_Taiwanese_films_of_the_1980s gives an idea of the paucity of RS. Nonetheless, the Taiwan New Wave is regarded in film circles as important. In view of this, its selection for restoration by the Taiwanese national film archive, recent screening in a film festival (already established by RS) and evidence that it was distributed widely at the time of original release [2] suffices to establish its notability in the historical Taiwanese context. There are plenty of mentions in domestic media: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Here is a recent review [8] which includes a quote from an 80s magazine, and another [9] [10]. Here is an academic article studying it in the context of the Taiwan New Wave [11].

It's worth pointing out that the people involved in this film are Taiwanese A-listers from the time, such as lead Sylvia Chang, screenplay by Hou Hsiao-Hsien, writer Chu T'ien-wen, director Chen Kun-hou, Wu Nien-jen, lead Jonathan Lee (musician). These don't establish notability per se, but it's very clear this isn't just some random old movie.

Do you feel that the above combination of sources suffices? DrIdiot (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying the film isn’t notable. I just am saying there wasn’t enough sources in the article however I felt confident they would exist so drafted the article to allow you to put them in. Once you feel the article is properly sourced, please move it back to main when ready. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:My Favorite Season (Taiwanese film)

Hello, DrIdiot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:My Favorite Season (Taiwanese film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]