User talk:ProKMT

Welcome!

Hello, ProKMT! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work

Greetings!

Excellent work on the templates. If you are interested, you could write a section about Chinese and/or Japanese conservatism in the main article on conservatism under the heading "National variants". Other nations, such as India and South Korea, are already represented. I would have done it myself, but it's better to leave it to someone with genuine expertise on the topic. Then there's also the possibility of creating new articles that deal exclusively with Chinese and Japanese conservatism, respectively.

Regards Trakking (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm DB1729. I noticed that you recently removed content from Yamato people without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DB1729^talk 11:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for providing this explanation. While I have struck through the templated warning above, the message still stands. I strongly suggest getting into the habit of always providing edit summaries, especially for major edits and those involving content removal. I would expect to be reverted if I removed a significant chunk of text without explanation. Editors reviewing should not have to try and figure out why something was removed.

Edit summaries can be a benefit to you as well. I have found them to be extremely helpful in referencing my previous edits, just for my own sake.

Have a great rest of your day:) Cheers! --DB1729^talk 12:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. From now on, I will write down the edit summary when I do a large-scale editing. ProKMT (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minzu (anthropology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masao Maruyama. 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) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, ProKMT. Thank you for your work on Emperor system. CurryTime7-24, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Cited Kotobank article can be used to expand this article significantly.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CurryTime7-24}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Chinese language text

Hey there, and thanks for your recent contributions on China-related topics. One thing: when you add Chinese text to an article, could you please tag it appropriately as such? It's important for accessibility and other reasons, see this page for details. thanks! Remsense诉 06:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR

Generally, you should not cite other Wikipedia articles, either on the English Wikipedia or another Wikispace, when explaining your edits or making arguments on improving articles. "It's there so why not here?" is an argument to avoid, the reason being that editors can add anything anywhere at anytime if they have editing access. Yue🌙 20:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Radical pro-Beijing camp for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radical pro-Beijing camp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical pro-Beijing camp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistaken revert

Sorry for the revert at Hong Kong nationalism, the UI for diffs on my computer changed recently and I still sometimes get the added/removed notation backwards. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong has been nominated for deletion

Category:Anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving redirects

Hi ProKMT! I noticed that you recently moved a redirect. While this is possible, it is not normally necessary, and doing this can (for example) make it harder to find out how long a given redirect has existed for. You can instead create a new redirect from the title you wish to move the page to, and - if you believe that the other redirect should be deleted - you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Let me know if you have any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your edit to Hong Kong nationalism has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I search for books through google search, how can I usually check the copyright of books? ProKMT (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Checking the publication date of the book is the easiest way. Basically, books published in 1928 or earlier are in what's called the public domain, so you can legally copy them as much as you want (but on Wikipedia, you have to tell us that you've done that through something like this template Template:Source-attribution). Anything else, with the exception of some government/state works (varies by nation) is typically under legal protection. While we can cite those sources, we can't copy-paste prose from them, or paraphrase too closely. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me specifically how to check the copyright of the book after 1928. If not, I can't help but see a drastic reduction in Wikipedia editing. ProKMT (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's a book and its publication date is after 1928 you can safely assume it is copyrighted. Simonm223 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

I didn't see this notification but Epoch Times falls under it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:RS

I'm sorry if I seem like I've been putting a fair bit of pressure on you lately, especially because I don't want to WP:BITE a new editor but there's a few things I think you need to know if you want to have a productive editing experience:

I'm guessing from your username and from your talk page commentary that you have some very strong opinions about China. That's fine. Frankly so do I. This is not important though. What is important is that we edit for neutrality guided by reliable sources. We must ensure that the sources we use actually support the assertions we assign to them - this is a problem I have had with your "radical pro-Beijing" material - it is not supported by the sources you are citing. Trying to re-insert those sources on a new page minus the multitudinous tags which I added with edit summaries explaining exactly how they didn't support the assertions they claimed was a frustrating response to the AfD and not something you should have undertaken solo and without any talk page discussion. Likewise your assertions that, within Hong Kong any anti-Beijing faction categorically cannot be right-wing or that any pro-Beijing faction is intrinsically right wing must be supported by reliable sources. I'd suggest that these assertions come close to WP:FRINGE views and thus require extraordinary sourcing in order to assert in wiki voice. I will start a talk page discussion regarding your merge attempt. I strongly recommend you discuss your sources there before re-inserting your claims. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ProKMT. Thank you for your work on Huadu (Taiwan). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

I'm getting increasingly alarmed by your consistent pattern of POV editing across topics related to China. This is exacerbated by your tendency to edit infoboxes and categories, eschewing WP:RS your non-responsiveness at article talk and the sheer volume of small edits across dozens of pages. I'd strongly recommend you stop, assemble your thoughts to these pervasive changes and approach WP:CHINA to discuss the thrust of these changes and build consensus before proceeding. Could you please do so - because I am afraid that, right now, you're creating a lot of cleanup work for people across a variety of pages with these haphazard and non-discussed revisions to categories, infoboxes and other such adjustments. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it because of the Talk session of the Epoch Times? However, I did not edit the political position of the infobox in the Epoch Times article. In the case of a radical pro-Beijing camp article, I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I edited it. ProKMT (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Does "approach WP:CHINA" mean, for example, something like this? In the case of a new edit that is likely to be highly controversial, let me approach the talk session of WP:CHINA. ProKMT (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No it's not just about the Epoch Times issue - nor just about the edit to the Boxer Rebellion but rather your consistent pattern of clearly POV editing to categories, infoboxes and other locations not requiring sources combined with your regular use of weak sources such as blogs, newspapers that don't exist anymore, online only HK newspapers of questionable provenance, etc. I am asking you to engage at the wikiproject about the general thrust of these edits. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:3O Summary request

@ProKMT came from WP:3O. Would request advice to provide a neutral short summary (synopsis). Some quick tips may help you and others too, to help you. Happy editing Bookku (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pro-Americanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

The purpose of an infobox is to summarise, not supplant information in the article body. You do not need to add explanatory footnotes for every similarly named topic that readers may be confused about; that's what the disambiguation hatnotes are for in the main articles.

What I mean by this is, for example, you do not need to add the same footnote about Taiwanese nationalism in the Japanese era being different from the modern era to every infobox mention of Taiwanese nationalism before the modern era. This is a distinction that should be made in the article Taiwanese nationalism itself, and you should assume readers can figure out that distinction by reading the Taiwanese People's Party article itself. If they can't, you didn't do a good job of making it clear in the article body (in this case, you didn't make the effort at all).

Such lengthy footnotes, without proper explanations in the article body, are counter-intuitive to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. In a nutshell, you're supposed to make a nice box with concise information, not include lengthy notes for people to read because, if you do, then why would readers bother with the article body when the article body has been placed inside the infobox? In this case, I'd contend that the footnote is wholly unnecessary anyways, because the distinction should be obvious to readers from the article body, otherwise you should be more specific with what you add to the infobox, e.g. Taiwanese independence from Japan (or just Taiwanese independence; you don't have to clarify that it isn't independence from China because readers should be able to figure out from the article that Taiwan was under Japanese rule at the time!).

TL;DR, don't assume readers are poorly read and spoon feed them all the context improperly (i.e. by putting them in the infobox in contraduction of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), even if that assumption is likely true for the average reader. Yue🌙 06:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed the footnotes from the Taiwanese People's Party article. As you say, the TPP may be an unnecessary footnote because it is a political party during the Japanese rule. But the reason I added a footnote in my previous edit is that there was a Taiwanese nationalist who thought he wasn't Chinese even before 1945. ProKMT (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Regarding this recent edit of yours, two things:

1. Remember to start a discussion on the talk page before you add a maintenance tag. This is policy, because if I am a reader who notices the tag and I want a better explanation, the talk page would be the first place I would go. I would not instinctively search through the edit history to look for your edit summary with the explanation.
2. The NPOV tag is for content that may not be neutral, not the editor(s)' intentions which may not be neutral. You add the tag when the content is written from a specific point of view, such as when an opinion is stated as fact. Everything in the section you added were simple facts, but I would agree that the editor(s) who added them did so with a specific view in mind that wasn't clearly stated in the section. Instead of adding the NPOV tag I would have added the Relevance tag, or better yet, I would have just removed the section as the connection was unclear (only obvious to the editor(s) who added it).

Yue🌙 06:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Extreme nationalism in China

A tag has been placed on Category:Extreme nationalism in China indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I created that category incorrectly. So, I don't mind if the category is deleted. ProKMT (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Veteran (Taiwan) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Veteran (Taiwan), 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. Dan arndt (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hi, do you think Falun Gong-associated entities (e.g. New Tang Dynasty Television or Epoch Times) should be added to the conservatism templates for China/Taiwan (e.g. in the Related section)? I'm torn. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, would Frank Dikötter and his books be worth including? I'll totally leave it to you; I'm no expert in Asian politics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And... sorry for disturbing you with the open tabs I want to finally close: how about Far West (Taixi)? Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

My view: Falun Gong-related groups could also be included in Chinese conservatism. However, because Falun Gong was born in mainland China, it is ambiguous to call it Taiwanese conservatism. ProKMT (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Openly disclosing alternate accounts

[1] You really should publicly disclose on your user page which other accounts are also yours. seefooddiet (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

親美自由派 is my account, and I used it only once when I couldn't remember the password. ProKMT (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories of a lot of the pages you edit, often most of the editors were banned for sockpuppeting, and the topics are often contentious. It's not an encouraging trend. Please be more proactive in disclosing these alternate accounts. seefooddiet (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@129.126.202.49 does this IP belong to you by any chance? Some topic overlap with your edits. seefooddiet (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't edit English Wikipedia with IP ProKMT (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it isn't you, the consistent WP:SYNTH and WP:POV in your edits is alarming. You need to stick to sources much tighter. Do not analyze the situation on your own or infer details from sources that aren't directly written in the source. seefooddiet (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ProKMT. Thank you for your work on Local ethnic nationalism. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I almost AFD'd this one. To some extent it is essay-like and the title looks like a neologism that is not used in the sources. And a better title would probably indicate that it is China-specific. But IMO "the tendency of minority nationalities to secede from China" is a suitable distinct topic/ grouping, and there is substantial content and sources regarding this.Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProKMT. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if this SPI doesn't pass, may be worth having a discussion somewhere about the consistent WP:POV and WP:SYNTH in this user's edits. I don't know what it is about these political ideology pages; if you look at the edit histories for these pages like half the users were banned for sockpuppeting and the edits are chock full of POV/SYNTH. seefooddiet (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you think I'm doing POV more than other Chinese political article editors? It's not customary to write 100% of the content written in the source equally, and copyright issues can arise. I think I'm misunderstood as "biased" because of my username, but I'm not ethnic Chinese/Taiwanese and I'm not legally a citizen of PRC or ROC. I have no direct political interests with the KMT. I don't deny crimes in the past dictatorship, like the Wihte Terror in the KMT. I made a positive edit of the DPP without making a negative edit. I never biasedly glorified the conservatism of the ROC when editing. ProKMT (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's completely irrespective of what the topic you edit on is; it's the fact that your edits stretch past what the sources you give say. You need to strictly represent each source, no more, no less. A number of your edit comments don't help either; you analyze the situation on your own, making broad comments like "x believe y". All these contribute to distrust.

I have no opinions about the topics you cover; I often don't know much about them. It's solely a matter of Wikipedia policy, and it doesn't take a subject matter expert to spot these things seefooddiet (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that you're in bad company (most users being banned on those pages) and the topics you edit are often extremely controversial.

If you edited on like butterflies and nobody else around you was banned I wouldn't be here. seefooddiet (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest that I've got significant concerns regarding ProKMT's use of sources - sources they've inserted routinely fail verification to the point where, if I see an edit from them about Chinese politics, I kind of feel it is necessary to check the source immediately. They also regularly insert obvious WP:SYNTH into the articles they edit. However I am concerned that this... rather loose... interpretation of Wikipedia policy may also extend to their suspected patterns of editing while logged out. That's a specific issue that we can test and that has nothing to do with questions of POV in a contentious topic area. Regardless, I would encourage ProKMT, whether they're socking or not, to start paying more careful attention to the works they're citing in their edits. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And that's not even touching all the blatant POV edits to templates like this one. Treating negative sentiments toward Taiwan as a feature specifically of Chinese conservatism is unlikely to be supported by any significant sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Also addressing the "100%" comment; it's disingenuous to try and portray me as telling you to basically violate copyright in order to represent sources. I write a lot on Wikipedia and have never come close to violating copyright; you don't either. You just summarize, in your own words, what they're saying. The issue is when you add your own ideas or say things the source doesn't suggest. seefooddiet (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)