User talk:GoBillsAyAyAy: Difference between revisions

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kui Xing, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is constructive. Please take time to rethink editing out someone’s considerable contribution before doing so. The information you replaced my edit with was unsubstantiated and uncited. GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The baby may be getting thrown out with the bathwater: your egregious violations of WP:Manual of Style, including improper capitalization of section titles and use of the <big> tag, make your edits look disruptive at first glance, before the content even gets fully reviewed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoBillsAyAyAy Yes, what @C.Fred said, when RC patrolling we look for obvious things first and then scrutinize the edit, adding <big> tags to the content is highly suspicious as it is never used. That is why your edit was reverted. It would be practically impossible to fix everybody’s mistakes in edits while RC patrolling, especially at such as size as yours, which is why we do not just fix the suspicious edits, but rather revert them. – LuniZunie_(talk) 04:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just adjust the size? Being rude this way is unproductive, unprofessional, and does not help this website to remain current with relevant scholarly information. GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being rude, I am stating the facts. We have guidelines, such as WP:MOS, and I suggest you read them. – LuniZunie_(talk) 05:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoBillsAyAyAyI like your edits, which provide good background to this page. I hope the formatting issues can be fixed, because this is a valuable contribution to the article.Si Kunlun (talk) Si Kunlun (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. referring to the Kui Xing page. Si Kunlun (talk) Si Kunlun (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Si Kunlun. That is very kind of you. I am new to this and greatly appreciate your feedback, that means a lot to me! Hopefully, I can fix the formatting issue and provide a relevant update that will be helpful for everyone. GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoBillsAyAyAy! I noticed that you’ve made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Kui Xing. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you’re aware of Wikipedia’s edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you’re doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Kui Xing, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors’ changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. I do not want you to be blocked, nor does anybody want top be rude to you. However, if you continue to reinstate your problematic edits without proper discussion, it is an issue. – LuniZunie_(talk) 05:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you’ve made to Kui Xing. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 03:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in an editing war, I have made the contribution using the correct size and included highlighted links. It appears that I am being made a target and the information that would be beneficial to the community is being impeded from access by individuals themselves who have targeted my edit. GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoBillsAyAyAy If everybody seems to be driving the wrong way, it might be you who is on the wrong side of the road. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you are preventing people from benefiting from a valuable update. Everyone can see this is an improper disruption to progress and that you are impeding this work without cause. I have been generous with my time and very patient. GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoBillsAyAyAy Your edits have numerous issues with them, so many that is it a problem. They cannot be added in their current state and you have been told so. It is not our Wikipedia:BURDEN to fix the issues with your edits. If you want your edits added, you must look at Wikipedia:MOS and actually understand what the issues are. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name one issue. There is nothing wrong with what I have added. You lamented about the size of the text previously, this text has not been enlarged. I am using the app appropriately and your inability to be specific about the cause for your constant supervision of this page is incredibly telling. My intellectual property and the intellectual property cited in this contribution do not need to be accessible via Wikipedia. People can continue to see an English version that is less enlightened if that is your purpose? GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your use of curly quotes
2. Your use of brackets
3. Improper use of dashes
4. Little / No linkage

– LuniZunie_(talk) 03:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the latest edit of my work? Curly quotes? Perhaps you’re looking at the previous entries that remain in the text you continue to revert it to, that were not written by me. Improper use of dashes? Brackets?No, not my contribution. Perhaps the entry that remains there currently, though. The entry that lacks proper citations. My update is beneficial to Wiki, but again, if you seek to have an entry that is not adequate that may explain why you so feverishly peck whenever I happen to provide an update. GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that:

Kui Xing gained greater popularity during the Ming (1368-1644 CE) and Qing dynasties (1644-1912 CE), after the

and

“Star Officials” or other times, “official,“ guan

are not written by you? Because, they sure are. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How else exactly would you convey that information? I have seen brackets and quotes used in other entries and there is no issue. This is a standard means of providing information. These aren’t [brackets] these are parenthesis. Is it really worth prohibiting the access of this information to other people because you seem to be intent on targeting my entry specifically? GoBillsAyAyAy (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]