User talk:MinYinChao

I have reverted your change to England, but left your reversion of the change to Wales to leave the status quo in place for both article. This has been a very controversial area (with one failed mediation) and there are multiple citations in favour of different wordings. The Wales page had mediation at the moment which looks to have a change of being agreed. Once that is the case it will implemented there, and we can try it on England to. --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are multiple citations in favour of differing wordings, should we not attempt to show this in the text? And what is a mediation? MinYinChao (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this page, Wales, Scotland, The United Kingdom and Constituent Countries you will see many many discussions on this. It went to mediation (check your help on Wikipedia) and was unresolved for all countries. On Wales a mediator has been brought it (see the talk page) who has proposed a solution that I think will gain acceptance. Be aware that this is a massively controversial area, abounding with edit wars and sock puppets. If you hang on a couple of days I think you will see a compromise at least on Wales and England, possibly Scotland. I have put this page on watch so reply here, no need to post on my talk page. --Snowded (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop directly editing pages on what are controversial issues. Also given prior history on these pages (I note you are a recent editor) would you please state now for the record if you have ever edited the Wikipedia under any other name? --Snowded (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you disagree and want to exhibit a bias, then Wikipedia is not the place, and you have no right to tell me to go away from an article. And Wikipedia has always been called under that name for as far as I am aware. MinYinChao (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires edits to reach agreement on controversial issues and this is done under the talk page not through edit wars. Please do not make accusations of bias when you have no basis for it. Note the mediation in place on Wales and also prior discussions and show respect for other editors. Please respond to my question on your prior history (if any) as an editor --Snowded (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Wikipedia has always been called Wikipedia has it not? MinYinChao (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at

P.S. I'm concerned you are a

sockpuppet of a banned user. Can you confirm you are unrelated to User:Wikipéire and User:Malarious? If you edit war again, I will not only block you, but seek to verify your connection with the aforementioned accounts. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not have more than one Wikipedia account if that is what you are asking. I hardly consider this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England&diff=prev&oldid=225835953 edit from Malarious, which replaces 'Constituent country' with 'Country' to fit with what I did, since I did the exact opposite - please actually think about what you are suggesting. And if you care to check, Wikipeire has been blocked, so how could I possibly be them? On another note, I would like to ask how it is that Wikipeire was allowed an accent in their name? As when I tried putting some Hanja in my name when making my account, it told me only regular letters could be used, yet that user seems to have been allowed not to. MinYinChao (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour and edit style is very similar to a whole set of sock puppets on these pages over the last few months, something that several of us have noticed. Hence the questions as there has been more than enough disruption. You also seem to be avoiding questions (another common feature). So a very simple question. Have you ever edited at any time in the past, the Wikipedia under any other name or IP? If yes, please list them. If No then please state it now for the record. Failure to answer would I think justify a checkuser --Snowded (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like your tone at all, and require a greater degree of standards of behaviour when someone is addressing me. If you care to check, I have answered all questions directed at me so far. If the wording I have given is not what you wanted, then try rewording your question. Don't bother messaging me again until you have something useful to say. MinYinChao (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other day, I created this User:kkjchangkumiang, since I could not remember what the name of my original account was, but after creating it, realised to check the edit history of one of the pages I had edited to remember the name of this account. Now please go tire someone else with your annoyance. MinYinChao (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have avoided answer the question about any PAST accounts. --Snowded (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it was not you that asked me that. You asked me something about editing Wikipedia while it was called something else, and did not clarify when I questioned about this, so if anything, it is you who has not answered the questions. JZA48 was the one who asked me that, and I responded with "I do not have more than one Wikipedia account if that is what you are asking", so please try reading next time. MinYinChao (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it very carefully and I am afraid I did ask you but you may have misinterpreted. I will repeat it with different wording. Have you at any time in the PAST edited the Wikipedia USING anyother name or IP? --Snowded (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if what JZA48 says is correct, and you can verify this, then why don't you just do that anyway? It would save any doubt. MinYinChao (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking for you to put it on record that you have never edited under any other names. Its all I wanted so thank you for doing that. --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lacking edit summary: This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An
  sockpuppets
  .
• Do ensure that the
  welcome page
  to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
• Lacking consensus. If you feel very strongly that your edits are suitable for inclusion, bring it up at the article talk page for further discussion, but do not revert your edits again. Doing so with a lack of
  blocked
  .
• attacking editors. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks
  will not help you make a point nor receive a positive response; they hurt the Wikipedia community (everyone here are volunteers), and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.