User talk:ProgramT

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{[failed verification]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As a long-time editor of pages relating to Chinese history and the history of Taiwan, what seefooddiet is saying here is absolutely true. Citations are first and foremost. What you assert without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence, ProKMT. GuardianH (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editing of Pro-KMT has significantly altered the historical and political narratives in various articles. The editing has also led to the disregard for previously established consensus, which escalated conflicts. The user has also created templates and sections within articles that reflect a clear POV bias and are entirely unsourced. Guotaian (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is very absurd that Guotaian refers to "disruptive editing" aimed at me. In numerous articles on China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, Guotaian attempted "disruptive editing" to fundamentally change existing political positions, ideologies, and narratives, and I only canceled his "disruptive editing." In addition to me, Guotaian had a big conflict with Yue, Vif12vf, and other users. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] ProKMT (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GuardianH had an editorial dispute with me in the 'Conservatism in Taiwan' template, and therefore is not a neutral opinion. GuardianH forced "ideologies" and "Principles" to be unified in the 'Conservatism in Taiwan' template [10][11]; "Ideologies" and "Principles" are necessarily separated in the template relating to conservatism in other countries.[12][13][14][15][16][17] ProKMT (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in your edit Special:Diff/1265709740 there is an undefined reference <ref name="PBCP"/> in the Iran section. --CiaPan (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Schools in the Republic of China reopened in Taiwan. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a de facto list article, and list articles often have no source. (see: List of universities and colleges in Taipei, List of direct democracy parties, Social Democratic Party, etc) ProKMT (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NLIST and per WP:LISTORG, A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. and It does not matter if other article is doing it, we must follow NLIST and LISTORG. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Chiangism into Second United Front. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you went way over the line with the edit warring across multiple pages. The correct course of action would have been to take a step back and request additional editors' input after the first or second revert. Your edit summaries calling Guotaian's edits destructive and shouting in all-caps are further bad form; even if you're right, you gain nothing from engaging in this way, and it will generally result only in further inflaming the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you relisted the multi-page dispute at 3O; a third opinion was provided and there are now four editors involved, it appears. You're welcome to explain your reasoning here if you only wish for my involvement, or at the 3O talk page if you feel there are valid reasons why the dispute should be relisted. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-KMT, between creating whole articles that are entirely WP:SYNTH and the Conservatism in Greater China page move you seem to have a tendency to make very bold major changes to the China article topic area that are honestly disruptive. I had Conservatism in China watchlisted but missed your page move. I did not have Conservatism in Greater China watchlisted. That means for me, and anyone else like me, your move basically broke our watchlisting and why? Because you had an edit dispute with one other editor. Please be significantly less rash in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Guotaian removes Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau from the "Conservatism in China" article and template because "China" is soon "PRC". I don't mind if the title of the article is "Conservatism in China" or "Conservatism in Greater China". However, the Taiwanese, Hong Kong, and Macau conservatism must be included absolutely in the article and template. My serious concern is, if the title goes back to "Conservatism in China", Guotaian will remove cases in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau's conservatism. So will the template. I'm very, very concerned about this. ProKMT (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right way to resolve a content dispute. Seriously you have to cut this out and be a bit more patient. These huge swings lead to a ton of cleanup work for the volunteers who come in later to find the mess you left behind. I'm getting pretty frustrated with having to have these conversations with you again and again. I know you mean well so I've been very patient with you but please. Stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At some point stronger disciplinary action should be taken. This user's edits have been really disruptive for a long time and there's no clear end in sight. seefooddiet (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, from my perspective, ProKMT can consider this the last warning before I seek remedies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My real view: Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are all "China", but Guotaian claims "China" = "PRC", it is not my claims.

1) I created the "Conservatism in China" template and an article, and it covered conservatism in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as well as the Mainland PRC.

2) In an article created and edited by Guotaian, he claimed that only the Mainland "PRC" since 1949 was "China" and removed cases from the Mainland ROC, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan before 1949. (Guotaian even put the image of the People's Republic of China in the template.)

3) Since I opposed Guotaian's destructive editing, I restored the contents related to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan in the "Conservatism in China" article. This led to an edit war with Guotaian, which led to a 24-hour block on both me and Guotaian.

My original position is that Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism, as well as Mainland PRC must be included in the "Conservatism in China" article and template. The problem is that to solve this, I have to wage a 2nd edit war with Guotaian even at the risk of being blocked. So I was forced to change the title of the article, and this time I'm accusing seefooddiet of making "edits have been really disruptive" to my user talk page. To be honest, I feel a very unfair.

It's Guotaian who really needs a "strong discretionary action", at least I didn't have any problems with it before Guotaian made a devastating edit of the "Conservatism in China" article and the template.

Guotaian stubbornly insists on in several articles and templates: Conservatism in China template should not attempt to cover all of Greater China, but should instead focus on conservatism within the PRC, while separate templates handle Hong Kong and Taiwan conservatism in their respective political contexts.[18] The fact that the PRC officially recognizes the ROC as "China" until 1949 does not mean that a modern template should treat pre-1949 liberalism and PRC-era liberalism as a single entity. ... Instead of forcing all periods of Chinese liberalism into a single PRC-centric template, a better approach would be to separate modern PRC liberalism from historical liberalism in China, ensuring that each is accurately represented[19]

Suggestions of excessive separation of templates (or articles), and attempts to limit 'China' to 'PRC' were all Guotaian's. When Guotaian made his destructive edits and destructive claims, almost no one stopped Guotaian, and I was the only one who undid Guotaian edits, and then I was unfairly blocked for starting an edit war. So, to avoid an edit war with Guotaian, I accepted Guotaian suggestions and edited the articles and templates, and now other users accuse me of destructive editing. Guotaian bears a large part of the responsibility for the current mess, and therefore I feel the situation is very unequal, unfair, and discriminatory. ProKMT (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it's current practice to refer to "China" as the PRC. To be clear, this is not my preference; I don't have a significant opinion on the matter. I align politically with Taiwan and dislike the CCP. This is purely a matter of following Wikipedia conventions. I think if you want to change Wikipedia conventions, you should attempt to start a move discussion on China, but I think your odds of success are extremely low. Until you succeed in such a move discussion, IMO you should follow the convention used on the rest of Wikipedia.

Honestly the shots you're firing at Guotaian at this comment, as well as your open POV pushing in this comment and elsewhere, are still unflattering to you. This is continually unencouraging. seefooddiet (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conservatism in Greater China has been nominated for merging with Template:Conservatism in China. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  GuardianH  00:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For helping with Chinese-related topics Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for giving me Barnstar! I will continue to make many good contributions related to Chinese-related topics. ProKMT (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Guotaian (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Template:Liberalism in China. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, this user should be given more serious sanctions. Continual behavioral and editing issues across a long time, they appear unlikely to get better. seefooddiet (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think my continuous behavioral and editing issues are? Both of my sanctions stemmed from edit conflicts with Guotaian. You revealed yourself that you don't know much about China topics: I have no opinions about the topics you cover; I often don't know much about them. I recently received a Barnstar on China topics from another user, which is proof that I'm making much more positive contributions to China topics than negative contributions to China topics. ProKMT (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up and read through the various threads, all covered there. Anyone can give barnstars for anything; they don't really mean all that much. I've seen plenty of users who were banned shortly after receiving barnstars for things. seefooddiet (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to address the middle point: this is a non-criticism. In literally the next sentence I say It's solely a matter of Wikipedia policy, and it doesn't take a subject matter expert to spot these things. In other words, your conduct and editing issues are so obvious that non-experts can easily spot them. And they have, over and over and over again. Numerous editors have reaffirmed that your editing is problematic. seefooddiet (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProKMT. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Kuomintang, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to worry about this. I'm not ethnic Chinese/Taiwanese, I have no nationality of PRC or ROC, I have no political interests of KMT. I'm just a foreigner interested in Chinese history! ProKMT (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does KMT mean in your name then if not Kuomintang? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProKMT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Veteran (Taiwan), 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) 01:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Conservatism in China (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because

• it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or

• it is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liberalism in Greater China has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of this but the pattern of editing where you reference the blocked editor Guotaian as being "destructive" in edit summaries is something Wikipedia discourages. It's called WP:GRAVEDANCING. Furthermore an editor being blocked for edit warring does not mean every edit they ever made is automatically invalid. I strongly encourage you to stop this pattern. If you believe an edit should be changed your edit summary should reflect why rather than who. Simonm223 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find a lot of your template additions are WP:SYNTH in a way that is quite detrimental to neutrality. This is leading to another round of having to clean up after you as you go about over-linking both contemporary Chinese thought and classical Chinese thought to Conservatism, this is rather anachronistic when dealing with philosophical movements such as Confucianism and Legalism that predate the formulation of Conservatism as a concrete ideology. I would suggest you should seek feedback before creating these template links. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who has added links to articles related to Confucianism to the template. Confucianism is described as proto-conservative and can never be separated from modern Chinese conservatism. There are many sources that refer to the connection between Chinese conservatism and Confucianism. Legalism, like Confucianism, is deeply related to modern Chinese conservatism. ProgramT (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to need a citation for that claim. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(As I don't have time, I'll quote it specifically later.) It's cited a lot in articles I haven't written: Conservatism#China and Confucius#Politics. ProgramT (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you know Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there's more WP:SYNTH in the China area than a lot of other topic areas because of anglosphere bias issues. I would like to see a reputable academic source that correlates Legalism with conservatism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not going to bother with a template here but consider yourself officially warned for edit warring. I suggest you self-revert as your edit has been heavily disputed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep status quo, so I'm not the beginning of the edit conflict. Plus I didn't violate WP:3RR. ProgramT (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:3RR doesn't immunize yourself from edit warring. You added content to the article. I removed it. You are not supposed to revert the material you edited back in twice. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Wikipedia is an 'anglosphere bias' doesn't justify your radical change towards China. I'm strongly opposed to radical change without any consensus among users. Americans or British people have a weaker bias towards China than Japanese or South Koreans. ProgramT (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Simonm223's concern. And the failed attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERing on 3RR is not encouraging. The combative attitude you have towards other users who disagree with you is a serious problem, ProgramT.

The synth issues have been continuing for months and have not significantly improved. Think we should reach out to admins if it continues to not look encouraging. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the first editing to include Legalism in Chinese conservatism was Trakking. [20] ProgramT (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really address my point. Even if we were to accept that none of this dispute is your fault, this contention falls into a pattern of similar arguments that you seem to very very frequently find yourself in. And when you're in them, the arguments turn bitter, and you very frequently display poor understanding of Wikipedia policy in them, with little desire to deescalate tension. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communists oppose the Chinese Communist Party 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. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ProgramT, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Pro-Republic of China, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Republic of China.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Clarityfiend}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conservatism in Singapore has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have been over WP:SYNTH so many times. Neoauthoritarianism is distinct from Ultraconservatism you cannot infer that a category is appropriate for both just because sources exist for one. Self-revert. The category is inappropriate on that WP:BLP page. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ho is a "radical" pro-Beijing politician who is different in color from common pro-Beijing politicians. However, you are right that adding the Neoauthoritarianism category based on this could technically be WP:SYNTH. I think "radical" pro-Beijing needs to be distinguished from common pro-Beijing. ProgramT (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With categories, especially BLP categories, these technicalities matter. When you are adding categories to pages please ensure the pages discuss the term directly. As for your desire to distinguish "radical" pro-Beijing camp from the pro-Beijing camp you need reliable sources that actually demonstrate that this is a distinct group. My objection to that distinction remains as it always was: it's not enough to show that members of the pro-Beijing camp are political radicals you need to demonstrate the existence of a radical camp with reference to reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is built from sources. We do not do original research. We do not play logic games to infer third terms. We stick to sources. Always. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Chinese Wikipedia, there are Pro-Beijing camp and Radcal pro-Beijing camp articles individually, and the term "pro-Beijing" is also used in English-language media. However, I also respect your comment. ProgramT (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please self-revert the WP:SYNTH on the WP:BLP now. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

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.

Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out talk session: Talk:Far-right politics#Hamas. ProgramT (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use academic sources and read them carefully before making edits to Israel / Palestine topics. Especially ones that might be seen as non-neutral such as wiki-voice claims regarding the specific ideology of one of the main parties. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Green Terror (Taiwan) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the edit[21] is edit warring... But the edit summary says "Stop with the edit war" can you explain how that makes sense? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProgramT. Thank you for your work on Taiwanese Localism Front. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed and beautiful weekend!

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 me! 04:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: I hope you have a happy and great weekend, too! I'll continue to edit well!! ProgramT (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:Socialism in Australia. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProgramT,

Thank you for creating Battle of Shalu Village.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please provide some more verifiable WP:RELIABLE references tagged with ^{[citation needed]}

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ProgamT, I reverted your edit that removed authoritarianism from the infobox on the basis that it isn't an ideology. I can understand why you did that given the lede of the article but authoritarianism is listed as such on this page: List of political ideologies#Authoritarianism. If you'd like to discuss this further, it would be best to do so on the talk page. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Democracy indices or Freedom in the World, Trumpism's "authoritarianism" is only a very relative meaning, not an NPOV perspective. During Trump's term, the United States did not go through a transition to dictatorship or equivalent authoritarianism, but became relatively less "liberal" (not "liberal" in the context of American politics, it means "liberal [democracy]" as a political system.). ProgramT (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarianism is featured in the ideology section-- I think it's pretty clear that the page is not characterising America's political system as authoritarian or dictatorial similar to Russia etc. It's refering instead to a belief about the virtues of centralising power. It's cited to reliable sources and features several times in the article. I appreciate that you may hold strong opinions about this but what you're doing is original research, a consensus was reached on Trumpism being authoritarian here: talk:Trumpism#Authoritarianism, really?

If you would still like to discuss this, please start a new topic on the talk page. Joko2468 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring in SYNTH which falls under BLP at Green Terror (Taiwan). You need consensus to restore it but you've tried to edit war it back in three times without consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the 2024 South Korean martial law crisis (caused by Yoon Suk Yeol, the then far-right South Korea's president) broke out, the DPP Legislative Caucus posted an article on Threads, claiming that the declaration of martial law was a legitimate effort to protect free constitutional democracy in South Korea and criticizing Taiwanese opposition parties for obstructing national security proposals, allegedly "unconstitutionally expand[ing]" their powers, and reducing the defense budget. While the post was deleted shortly afterwards, it sparked criticism from major opposition parties, including the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People's Party (TPP), who interpreted the post as a threat to take similar measures in Taiwan. This led to the DPP being criticized by South Korean netizens, and Chang Chi-kai and some Chinese/Taiwanese media dubbed it the "Green Terror". - which sentence is SYNTH? ProgramT (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire thing appears to be SYNTH... For example what single source supports that final sentence or are different bits supported by different sources? Maybe you just don't understand SYNTH/OR, it appears to have been the source of nearly a dozen complaints or criticisms on this talk page but your editing behavior doesn't seem to have changed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it all supported by the source? ProgramT (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (caused by Yoon Suk Yeol, the then far-right South Korea's president) ... This led to the DPP being criticized by South Korean netizens, and Chang Chi-kai and some Chinese/Taiwanese media dubbed it the "Green Terror". - Nowhere in this phrase is SYNTH. Isn't the source proving that Chang Chi-kai and Chinese/Taiwanese media refer to the DPP for defending South Korean martial law as "Green Terror"?
• When the 2024 South Korean martial law crisis broke out, the DPP Legislative Caucus posted an article on Threads, claiming that the declaration of martial law was a legitimate effort to protect free constitutional democracy in South Korea and criticizing Taiwanese opposition parties for obstructing national security proposals, allegedly "unconstitutionally expand[ing]" their powers, and reducing the defense budget. While the post was deleted shortly afterwards, it sparked criticism from major opposition parties, including the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People's Party (TPP), who interpreted the post as a threat to take similar measures in Taiwan. - This is an exact copy of the 2024 South Korean martial law crisis#International diplomatic statements article. This is essential to explain why the DPP is criticized as a "Green Terror". ProgramT (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What "the source"? You have five sources (^{[1][2][3][4][5]}) stacked on that piece of text, not one, and we've already established that they aren't all WP:RS so what singular source are you referring to now? As for the second but of text none of those sources mention the Green Terror concept, so its clearly not essential to the background and the way you're using it makes it look like the sources are talking about it in the context of Green Terror but that is misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, all five sources have 綠色恐怖 (Green Terror) mentioned. The DPP's defense of South Korea's martial law is much more [White/Green] "Terror" than Ko's corruption allegations or Ma's textbook controversy. ProgramT (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources given in the bit you quote from 2024 South Korean martial law crisis#International diplomatic statements mention green terror^[6][7][8]. Not alone either, [22] for example... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProgramT

I edit here too, under the username Significa liberdade and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Mr. Democracy, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 15 § Mr. Democracy.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cathaysianism 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/Cathaysianism 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.

Yue ✉ 01:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what regard can it be considered far right? Please consider NPOV and listening to all sides instead of affirming the consquent. ~2025-34140-84 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme social conservatism, ultra-nationalism, and authoritarian capitalism are characteristics of the far right, not the far left. It is a widely shared view among many wiki-users that the CCP's political position should not be simplified to be "far-left". ProgramT (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Right-conservatism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in many pages regarding liberal political parties, the Wikipedia standard for social liberal parties that do not have a social democratic ideology are listed as centre to centre-left. There is a clear demarcation between the UK Liberal Democrats' centre to centre-left as compared to the UK Labour Party's centre-left. Whether a party is commonly described as centre-left holds less relevance in such cases, as very rarely will a news or media outlet refer to a party as "centre to centre-left", similar to how the media wouldn't refer to the KMT as "centre-right to right-wing, but rather, centre-right or right-wing. Similarly, the UK Liberal Democrats, Dansish Social Liberals (Radikale Venstre) are referred to as "centrist" due to their position in relation to their surrounding parties in parliament, but the Canadian Liberals and US Democrats are frequently referred to as centre-left or left-wing despite being ideologically similar or even to the right of other social liberal European parties. The same applies to the DPP. The DPP is, by comparison to the TPP, more right-wing on economic and some social issues, more right-wing. The political spectrum and classifications of Taiwan are different from Western ones, but the political positioning area on Wikipedia refers to such a standard set. The DPP is a market-friendly, social liberal party. The term "centre-left" on other parties is usually attributed to social democratic parties like the German SPD or Danish Social Democrats. For that reason, it is not within standard to give a liberal party the positioning of "centre-left" on the page. Anchluss (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in many pages regarding liberal political parties, the Wikipedia standard for social liberal parties that do not have a social democratic ideology are listed as centre to centre-left. – DPP is referred to as a social democrat, even a socialist, in its source (see Democratic Progressive Party#Ideology and policies).^[1][2][3] Therefore, it is WP:SYNTH that compares to the US Dems or Canadian Liberals who are never social democrats. DPP is closer to Yabloko than US Dems; conservative liberals can be right-wing, social liberals can be left-wing. It is you who are trying to break the status quo, and I disagree with your view. ProgramT (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The DPP affiliates with explicitly liberal international organizations (Liberal International and the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats), which are institutional homes for liberal and social‑liberal parties, not classic social‑democratic ones. There is explicit discussion that calling it a social‑democratic party is contested, because its economic policies are often closer to moderate, regulated capitalism and welfare liberalism than to the stronger redistribution and labour orientation typical of classic social‑democratic parties. Anchluss (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:SYNTH. Majority view (media, academic materials, etc.) is that DPP is 'centre-left', not 'centre to centre-left'; per WP:RSUW. ProgramT (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources labelling the DPP as centrist^[4] as well as centre-left: In the previous versions, the DPP was also stated as being centre to centre-left. Anchluss (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are overwhelmingly more sources that refer to DPP as centre-left than sources that refer to DPP as centrist. In addition, there are sources that refer to DPP as left-wing^[5][6][7] (see Democratic Progressive Party#Ideology and policies); per WP:RSUW. ProgramT (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's content is not determined by source-counting but by weight and proper attribution WP:WEIGHT WP:RSUW. Your sources are descriptive instead of classificatory, discussing progressive social policies, democratization, or the DPP’s position relative to the KMT, instead of placing the DPP left–right spectrum in a descriptive political sense. Using these to assign it a “centre-left” label risks synthesis WP:SYNTH and overextension beyond what the sources explicitly state WP:ATTRIBUTE. Seeing how much the sources vary, some describing the DPP as liberal or centrist, others as centre-left, the label “centre to centre-left” should best show a neutral point of view and consensus WP:NPOV WP:CONSENSUS without exacerbating differences. Anchluss (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal" and "centrist" are by no means synonymous (just as Vente Venezuela is a liberal party but never a 'centre [to centre-right]', the Democratic Progressive Party is a liberal party but never a 'centre [to centre-left]'), and view of DPP as "centrist" is a minority view; per WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RSUW. DPP is "centre-left", not "centre to centre-left"; DPP is also overwhelmingly referred to as "centre-left" rather than "centrist" in MSM. ProgramT (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, “liberal” and “centrist” are not synonymous, but political positions aren't assigned based on ideology labels alone. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RSUW, what matters is how reliable sources systematically classify a party overall, not how often a term appears in media commentary. Many sources cited as calling the DPP “centre-left” do so in a contextual or relative sense (e.g., compared to the KMT or on specific social issues), rather than as direct ideological placement. Using descriptions to give it a direct “centre-left” label risks synthesis WP:SYNTH. Claims that a centre-to-centre-left view is “minority” is not backed by classification sources, and MSM usage alone does not establish consensus. Anchluss (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find a source that refers to a German CDU or SPD as "centrist", but it does not reflect that in the infobox. The DPP is not just a left-liberal party, it is a "progressive" or "social democratic" party, which is closer to "centre-left" (similar cases: Yabloko, Alliance 90/The Greens) than "centre to centre-left" even by Western standards. Very few or no 2020s relable sources refer to DPP as "centrist". ProgramT (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Analogies to the CDU/SPD or to parties like the Greens or Yabloko are not evidence unless sources explicitly make those comparisons, per WP:SYNTH WP:ATTRIBUTE. They actually prove my point, as Wikipedia does not show every descriptive use of “centrist” or “left” in infoboxes, but rather direct classifications. “Progressive” does not automatically equal social democratic in a political-science sense, as many liberal and socialist parties are also "progressive". to and MSM usage alone does not establish a definitive infobox classification, per WP:RSUW WP:WEIGHT. Anchluss (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iran looks like a cat on a map. I present this cat to you for helping to develop political Template in Iran. I hope you will create them in wikifa as well.

real_mb (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kitten and the kind words! It’s fascinating to see the 'cat' shape of Iran. I'm happy to have contributed to the templates. Best regards! ProgramT (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProgramT, just dropping you a line to tell you that there is an ongoing deletion discussion for an article you have worked on.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProgramT,

Thank you for creating Liberalism and nationalism.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

As currently sourced, this looks far to like original research I'm afraid. None of the sources used explicitly are explicitly about "Liberalism and Nationalism" as a standalone notable topic, which is a strong indicator of OR. I can see that academic papers have been written with the title "Liberalism and Nationalism", so it potentially is a notable standalone topic (although changing it to "Relationship between ..." might be more helpful to readers), but this article, as currently constructed, does not read like a summary / chronicle of those papers? thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a redirect and expanding it out into an article from old, low-quality, sources to try and put forward the suggestion that socialism is really just fascism is not something that any editor should be doing. Please don't do that. Simonm223 (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unhappy with the PRC section of an existing authoritarian nationalism article, I think you only need to remove that section; you don't need to remove the article itself. The term authoritarian nationalism is a term often used in political science and requires individual articles; like authoritarian conservatism, authoritarian socialism or authoritarian capitalism. Much of what's written in the authoritarian nationalism article relates conservative right-wing politics rather than socialism. ProgramT (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your new article is a pervasive product of WP:SYNTH again. I feel a profound sense of deja vu here as I've cautioned you before. But you're using sources that mention authoritarianism and mention nationalism and using them to posit that "Authoritarian Nationalism" is a unique thing rather than just being the intersection of two distinct concepts. You either need sources to support this being a distinct concept of its own or to self-revert back to the redirect. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more sources where "Authoritarian Nationalism" is directly mentioned. ProgramT (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China section was added again, but it rejected sources close to WP:SYNTH, such as "fascism" references, and directly added sources called "authoritarian nationalist". I don't think socialism is really just fascism; the totalitarian nationalist system of the CCP doesn't speak for socialism as a whole. ProgramT (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Roger Griffin citation in the "Relationship to Fascism" section you introduced with this edit [23] was so mangled and, frankly, false that I have to ask if you used an LLM for the citation. There are no references to "authoritarian nationalism" in the whole book and certainly none that compare and contrast it to fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there was a technical mistake or misunderstanding in my process of organizing and citing sources, so there was no problem with removing your "Relationship to Fascism" section. However, there was no WP:SYNTH in the "People's Republic of China" section you removed.

Regarding the restored 'People's Republic of China' section, I have updated the text to strictly adhere to the provided scholarly sources. The characterizations of Xi Jinping and Liu Xiaofeng are now explicitly attributed to Berch Berberoglu (2020) and Eske J. Møllgaard (2018), respectively.

As both sources explicitly use the term 'authoritarian nationalism' (or 'authoritarian-nationalist') to describe these subjects, I have included the direct quotes in the citations to ensure transparency and avoid any WP:SYNTH concerns. I trust this addresses the previous issues regarding source verification. ProgramT (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the edits that introduced copyright violations? This is why we don't use ChatGPT to write Wikipedia articles, which you clearly did here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used ChatGPT, let alone for wiki editing; the "People's Republic of China" section is made up of sources that I found directly on Google. ProgramT (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try typing this in your own Google search:

• "authoritarian nationalism" "communist" China

Also, try typing this in your own Google book search:

• "authoritarian nationalist" "Xi Jinping"
• "authoritarian nationalist" "Chinese Communist Party"

Here's the source I've added to the PRC section. It's definitely not using AI. I would have said that I use a translator for my userpage, but you know that translator and AI are different, right? Once I've used Google Search, it's on page 1. ProgramT (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving you this formal warning in case you were not yet aware. Please go read WP:EPAI. It's very clear that you used AI tools to draft Authoritarian nationalism. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. I need you to immediately correct this issue, fixing all hallucinated and otherwise mangled citations and removing copyright violations. If you have used AI in the production of other pages you should also, immediately, do this for these pages. I will wait to see your response before considering next steps. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources of the "People's Republic of China" section are from own Google search. Regarding the WP:COPYVIO concern in the PRC section, I acknowledge that the phrasing was too close to the source in my attempt to avoid any WP:SYNTH issues. I have now paraphrased the content to ensure it adheres to copyright policies while maintaining the factual information provided by Benjamin Green (2021). This happened inevitably because you claim that non-WP:SYNTH editing is WP:SYNTH and prevent legitimate editing. ProgramT (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's happening inevitably for the same reason that so many of your sources completely fail verification - because you are using AI tools to draft article content. 10:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google search as I mentioned above? In the "People's Republic of China" section, my edit didn't use AI; don't remove that section. ProgramT (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic political parties 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. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]