Rethliopuks

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rethliopuks. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 09:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Tianjin explosions

(Copied from my edit summary)

All three sources given state that it was "Tianjin TV". Stop adding Beijing News' "explanation" and stop adding "Satellite" to make it fit better. No RS has printed any of that BS

Wikipedia isn't here to serve the propaganda purposes of your masters in Beijing. See WP:Primary Source. Thank you zzz (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have your talk page on my WP:watchlist so if you wish to reply you should do so here. zzz (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, though if you check, the source from iFeng states clearly that it is the "Satellite Channel" (a Channel belonging to Tianjin TV) and not just "Tianjin TV", so I thought it was like "people thought that candidates were too unorthodox" versus "people thought that Trump and Sanders were too unorthodox" where both are correct but clarification is better the part concerning the regulation, worded just as "television channels", was factually incorrect. Also, if you check, the source is not really "explaining" anything in the sense that it sees a phenomenon presented to it and seeks for the underlying cause; it is stating a clause of a regulation that was an explicit part of the facts and that explicitly took part in shaping multiple rather significant events (e.g. Tianjin news not live reporting; journalists fully ready waiting in situ for permission to transmit data to TJTV to broadcast; journalists dispatched by Tianjin media transmitting data to CCTV only; CCTV which is in Beijing, whose reporters only arrived 4a.m., reporting live instead; public uproar that Tianjin Satellite Channel (the only Tianjin channel accessible nationwide) should be doing that; later reports recycling data from the night but back then no such was publicly available when no regulations/censoring directed to the explosions even existed).

Now don't mistake me; I don't think the source is entirely factual either since every person from Tianjin tells me that no local Television did live report (the source claims that they did, and ), but I think it has this truth in it, so I cited it. And as much as truth is concerned and nothing more is involved, it is good; or you can just dismiss that and think that all sources must contain no content error entirely to be acceptable for Wikipedia.

By just citing WP:Primary Source, are you suggesting that I did "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source [my]self", that it is an exceptional claim and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or actually that WP:SOURCE and it is not a reliable source? And WP:GF please, thank you very much. (sᴍıʟᴇ) Rethliopuks (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed - I was just a little shocked to see myself mentioned in an edit summary before my first cup of coffee. No, by citing primary source I am saying that Beijing News, in controversial/sensitive matters concerning the public image of the CCP, cannot be seen as anything other than a primary source - it is inconceivable that they would do anything other than defend the official line. Since the article was accurately reporting what all other sources said, I can't see why to muddy the waters with their propaganda. (That's not to say that they absolutely can't be trusted on anything.) It's just that I find it hard to swallow anything that is printed in the officially sanctioned Chinese press that puts the CCP in a better light. The part about regulations is now gone, for the reason you stated. Do you think the section, as it stands, is inaccurate? zzz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rethliopuks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rethliopuks. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shenzhen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQL^{Query me!} 19:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Data !!!

Hello Rethliopuks, I noticed you push on the data side of the Wuhan epidemic. Would you be ok to move these data tables into templates space ? Such as {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus China data by province}}, by example ? It would isolate the data, ease maintenance, and it would be as easy (simplier) to include in the articles. I did it for {{2019_coronavirus_pandemic_data}} and I'am quite happy of it. The template gets improved and updated by several users now, and a discussion is taking place. Yug (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course! Thank you for your kind offer. Rethliopuks (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, as a new wikipedian editor, if you ever have conflict wirh other wikipedians : sit back, ask the rational and explanaitions and be ready to listen it, call me over. I may help bridge both side ;) Yug (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan News

Taiwan News is a credible news source...and just because a report is single-source does not make that inappropriate, especially if it's a time-sensitive piece of data, such as inadvertent data releases (that are subsequently withdrawn); happens all the time. Please stop deleting the Tencent story on the 2019-nCoV timeline. It stands as-is...and credibly so. --2600:1700:80:5AD0:5528:57EE:F835:719 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am worried because the content is straightforward to fabricate. You can do it yourself by editing the source code of the webpage from your end. It is an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence. That was not to say that Taiwan news wasn't a credible source, but rather that the claim is so substantial yet based on so shaky grounds that it should require more credible sources to back up. If you read closely, the Taiwan news article never seemed to suggest that they verified the data as authentic -- in substance merely relaying what circulated on the Internet. Hence we should be cautious and at least cite a credible source which claims to have verified its evidence. Rethliopuks (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Source of data for province-level cases of coronavirus?

I do not see any source of data for province-level cases. I see a cited source for total cases, but that does include only a few provinces. (For example, where are the data from guandong province from? Not in the cited page.) I cannot verify those independently. ----221.121.29.157 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I do have all the sources but was worried that adding 100 sources every three days would clunk up the page. I can certainly add them all back if you want, although it would take me a while. Also, even if I were to add the sources, I'd plan to list them separately from the table as the tallying can be absolute pain; I'm using excel for all the summations and subtractions, and it's just orders of magnitude easier to just copy and paste rows. What do you think? Rethliopuks (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Hi, Rethliopuks! I just wanted to say that your last contribution here on the article Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020 was great :)

I believe we need more content coming directly from original sources in chinese and you have been doing a terrific job. Keep up the good work! Have a nice day! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 ! thanks for the good work. Mentor recomendations : always ask around to understand better the wikipedia rules and practices :), and make some friends to call over if you see something fishy. Yug (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus China cases chart

I assume you did not intend to, but your edits changing the colours of the chart bars were incorrect. As explained in the description (citing CNN), from 10 to 18 Feb China included clinically diagnosed cases in their count even if they were not lab-tested. From 19 Feb onwards, China reverted to counting only lab-tested cases, but did not subtract the non-lab-tested cases counted during 10 to 18 Feb. And from 16 Feb onwards there is to my knowledge no data for total lab-tested cases. Hence we cannot label any of the numbers from 16 Feb onwards as "lab-tested". We could estimate that the total lab-tested cases reached ≈54000 as of 19 Feb, which would imply that it would reach ≈57000 as of 23 Feb, leaving ≈20000 clinically diagnosed cases included in the published count. If you know any reliable sources with data on lab-tested cases, let me know and we can work it into the chart. Thanks! 202.166.16.132 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@202.166.16.132: Hubei initially subtracted all the CD cases not testing positive for its data of 19 Feb and reverted the change later. This should give you the number and I believe it was 426. All the cases since 19 Feb are tested ones plus the restored handful of hundred cases in Hubei. I absolutely meant to change the colours; I just didn't find the time/energy to insert the 426 number and source + explanation at the time. Rethliopuks (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't think that I did not read that. That 426 was only relevant to 19 Feb. I don't understand why you insist on your reading when the CNN article explicitly supports what I said:

Tu Yuanchao, deputy director of Hubei Health Committee, said at a press conference that the provincial government has banned the practice of reducing the number of already confirmed cases. Tu said that all the cases that were confirmed but then retroactively dismissed as they no longer fitted the reporting requirements would be added back to the total tally. "These adjustments in numbers have attracted huge public attention, caused some doubts about the data. As a result, Ying Yong, secretary of the provincial Party committee, attached great importance to this issue. He explicitly ordered that no subtraction be allowed for already-confirmed cases and all subtractions be added back," Tu said.

I tell you what, you find some reliable source that explicitly states the number of lab-tested cases, and we will follow that. 202.166.16.132 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@202.116.16.132: Is any source possibly more authoritative than the Health Commission of Hubei? Well, did you read the source I added from CCTV? Also, if you really want to discuss, I'd advise not using an IP address as that makes pinging fairly difficult. Rethliopuks (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that they never stated the number of lab-tested cases so far. They even explicitly stated that they would not subtract already-confirmed cases, which means that the thousands of cases clinically diagnosed from 10 to 18 Feb but not lab-tested would NOT be subtracted. Hence we do not know the real number of lab-tested cases. I don't mind if you think the rejected cases from 19 Feb onwards (i.e. clinically diagnosed but negative lab-test) should be counted under "clinically diagnosed" or not, because I can see reasonable argument for either choice. One choice (yours) is to count "at first clinically diagnosed". The other choice (mine) was simply to let the final total count be the most accurate actual number we have, which means excluding those that were explicitly stated to be negative.

However, I see that you have used a different colour for 16 Feb onwards, and I think that may be the best solution, since it does respect the data that we have (or don't have), and does not colour lab-tested cases as "clinically diagnosed". So I am fine with your current version, and only made a change to the legend at the top of the chart to match it.

Don't worry about pinging me; I was watching this page. I hope we are now agreed on a good representation of the data. So thank you. 202.166.16.132 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I am sorry for violating the three-revert rule. I stopped what I thought was my third revert but I was wrong, it was my fifth already. I was not aware that edits that override edit conflicts may also count as "revert". <br>I had engaged with the IP user's rapid reverting edit war because I was worried that there would not be a way to effectively notify an IP editor, and I was not aware that Wikipedia had fast dispute resolution channels, not having familiarised myself with any. I will definitely be mindful from now on first to communicate and resolve the issues. <br>I will keep mindful of the nature of my edits, not effectively reverting other editors' contributions in violation of [[WP:3RR]].<br>I have familiarised myself with a few ways to reliably ping an IP user which I previously was not aware had existed, such as an IP user talk page able to notify the IP user. I will use such channels in future.<br>I have since read through and understood Wikipedia policies for the classification criteria of violations and their respective resolution mechanisms; should anything that might count as urgent happen in future, I will use an official resolution channel for third party judgment. <br>If I am unblocked, I will be able to make constructive contributions to the coronavirus templates and timeline updates that are timely.}} Rethliopuks (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you modify your request. The problem isn't WP:3RR; careful counting will not keep you out of trouble. The issue is WP:EDITWAR; 3RR is just an obvious symptom of edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Honestly, the only essential reason I ever undertook in the edit war was because I didn't know of any reliable method to notify an IP user of a discussion. I have added my clarification. Rethliopuks (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am disabling your unblock request to prevent yet more administrators from wasting their time reviewing it, because the block has expired, as you must know, since you have edited again. JBW (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Liu Fan (nurse)

Hello, Rethliopuks

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheLongTone and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Liu Fan (nurse), should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liu Fan (nurse).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. 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|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've supplemented some contexts which made her notable. Her death attracted national attention and considerable controversies ensued which occupied press coverage for days. She was also an important figure in the early chronology of the coronavirus outbreak. A Google search for her returns more than five million results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%9F%B3%E5%B8%86+%22%E6%8A%A4%E5%A3%AB%22 . Rethliopuks (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Sichuan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Sichuan 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/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Sichuan 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. C933103 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary table by region in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases

Hi. I support the idea of having a summary of the regional data, but another table I think it's too much. I think what might be good is a bar-chart (like the one for the daily new cases) with the regions on the x-axis and the most recent total number on the y-axis. This would also serve as a visual help to understand the numbers. Cheers. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the tardy reply. What I would like to see is just a sortable table that allows for seeing which regions have the most/least cases, deaths, discharged ppl, etc. Currently Wikipedia does not support horizontal sorting for some reason, so I thought it might be a good idea to have a transposed table for the situation, like there is for South Korea. What do you think? Rethliopuks (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong date format, please revert

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Formats and revert your edits to Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Spain_medical_cases -- Wikipedia's date style indicates that hyphens should be used in dates, and indeed says explicitly that dates formatted "2007/04/15" are unacceptable. Thank you. -- ChaTo (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- obviously it was unlikely to be a hill I would insist on dying on, so if next time you see this happen you could probably just revert it yourself. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Wondering your thoughts

On making tables like this for the top 25 or so affected countries? The first table specifically.Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Spain medical cases Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

One for Italy is missing 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy

With the needed data here http://opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b0c68bce2cce478eaac82fe38d4138b1

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. If you mean a summarised breakdown by (at least) the first-level/major administrative divisions (or other applicable divisions of major regions), then yes, I absolutely support it. My concern is not only the clarity it would bring for people interested in knowing about the situations of specific regions, but also a more accurate representation of the situation of the pandemic. For example, Turkey had 21K cases as of 04/04, but of which 12K were in Istanbul alone, 2K in Ankara + Izmir, and another 5K in the rest of the western half of the country. That is very different from a scenario where any region has approximately the same order of number of cases.Rethliopuks (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to check if I understood your question, because it looks to me as though the first table in the Spanish template is of the same kind as the first one in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases. Rethliopuks (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Hubei lockdowns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jia County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Tibet

Hello, Rethliopuks,

Thank you for creating 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Tibet.

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

Thanks for creating this article.

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 prepend it with {{Re|Abishe}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Abishe (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Request translation Isabelle de Charriere

Hello Reth, Could you write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the CMN wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Jilin

Hello, Rethliopuks. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Jilin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/International medical cases

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/International medical cases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of COVID-19 pandemic in Liaoning for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article COVID-19 pandemic in Liaoning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Liaoning 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.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of COVID-19 pandemic in Henan for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article COVID-19 pandemic in Henan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Henan 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.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Need help on articles about COVID in China

Hello, Rethliopuks. I am contacting you because you created the article about the covid situation in Henan, China. I have created a number of articles since January of this year on covid in various Chinese provinces. The only issue is that most of the sources are from the Chinese government media, which is very extensive, but seem to be heavy on statistics. Any help would be appreciated.Ziping53 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/China medical cases summary by province

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/China medical cases summary by province has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom/Scotland medical cases 2020

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom/Scotland medical cases 2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)