User talk:Al. M. G. 2004

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chinese honorifics, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Remsense ‥ 论 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in multiple locations on the talk page and elsewhere, there are no citations to reliable sources for the material you added to Chinese honorifics: it was removed for being original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please do not readd any of the material without inline citations to reliable sources, this is required per site policy. Remsense ‥ 论 20:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 04:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al. M. G. 2004, do you have any particular reason for re-adding the same massive, uncited wall of material after it was removed and you were asked to discuss why you added it? Remsense ‥ 论 04:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kindly don't give me such a nonsense and talkback on the day of martyrs, you know that it's a useful resource, can't you add some disclaimer or warning, if you think it's all false ? i will have my teacher review it, then you will be chided for your indolence Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's a useful resource. Instead, it's a big undifferentiated pile of words that, all else being equal, a reader can't rely on or make use of. Why would someone coming across it accept any of it as reliable or useful? It was just dumped there by an anonymous stranger! That's why we generally expect inline citations—since it's been contested, per our standards on verifiability you're going to be required to cite reliable sources if you want to add any of that material back in the future. If you can do that, please feel free.

I'm only as deliberate as I am because I care a lot about improving the material about China and Chinese culture on here to a high standard, if you're willing to take me at my word for that. I hope you have a nice National Day, for what it's worth. Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

I gave a candid thought to your remark, and I gave to meditate on it, so that I can consider the entire section.

I can only ask you, will you answer if you must whether the given material is right or wrong?

I should only say you to kindly revert, and I will look deeper.

After that I tried to extract (removing punctuation, Chinese engravings, and phonetic annotations) some passages to search Google Books and other databases, perhaps to find the source, since I don't trust Zhang or Li to put it together directly in a source editor.

Since I didn't find the source, I can't write the quotation at the top as you asked, and I also know that it is customary.

What did Qianlong convey to Macartney?

The administrative agencies that rule the four seas and other places are only concerned with the proper execution of government affairs.

For other editors who wish to help, what they need more is to find the source.

Since I can't find it, I have to admit this weakness and mistake because I can't reach your level of sharpness.

I can only offer you the respect I have and a deep respect for your work which will continue even until tomorrow.

I can express my deep respect for you to continue your work and not end with physical threats, which is also very common. As for me, I will give in to the source and imbibe at the same time so that we can multiply the joy in our limited and short lives.

I also want to thank you for giving to extend one regard for me while protests and disruptions to the good order of the site even though you were tired of it. Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I think it will be most productive if you add the material in smaller pieces so that others can review it, and try your best to cite your sources: the citations don't have to be perfect, others can fix them—but we need to be able to verify where information comes from. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 05:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, this is what I discussed, as I could not find the source of the excerpt, so from his point of view, the material cannot be sent back for further review.

Do I understand you to give me permission to restore given data to a previous state where we still do not know its origin? Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]