User talk:Kent Wang

On the CFR, it considers itself a "non-partisan organization" and people from both parties belong to it. I too wouldn't say that it has a stated political position, it really works as more of a forum if anything. You may want to try reading Foreign Affairs (a political journal published by the CFR) or seeing their website to see other works by the organization. You might also want to avoid using talk pages of articles to talk about these things, we have a pretty well-established policy that talk pages should be used only to talk about improvements to the article of which they belong. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Tiananmen Square Self Immolation

Hi there! Thanks for the help. Unfortunately I'm on a trip so probably couldn't post often. I'l join in whenever I can. --Yenchin 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How recently did you add the tag? There's five minutes of rest time between each of the edits. MessedRocker (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, the bot is indeed down. I cannot do anything about it as the bot's hosted on the toolserver. MessedRocker (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN

There is still the tendency to overegg the FG claims in some cases, as FG practitioners live the day-to-day prejudices and this is a natural reaction. Whilst we agree that the ZFL quote is coming close to synthesis, and that I am uncomfortable to allow the phrase to sit together with the newspaper citation, I think we should go easy on asdfg. He is intelligent, not impetuous, and sincere in his cooperation, unlike quite a few others I have come across. The article has progressed to a degree where it is quite respectable in content and neutrality, and I am not sure that "another side from FG" is necessarily called for, but I am keeping an open mind. Anyway, I appreciate your input and would applaud your perseverence with the FG articles. Now that most of the articles are in a reasonable shape, I may well work less on this and more on other stuff. Thankfully, there have not been any major warfares recently - like the one which resulted in the FG article being protected - all the street battles, reverts etc are taking their toll, and I feel I am beginning to lose the objectivity which I feel is necessary to edit articles properly. Ohconfucius 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your all points. I've very much enjoyed working with you on this article. I'll keep an eye on your contributions and see if I can continue to work along your side. Kent Wang 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kent Wang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am using a proxy because I live in CHina, but it is a SSH tunnel on my home router, which is firewalled, to a private server. Kent Wang (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are no active blocks on your account. If you're caught in an autoblock, although I can't see one, please follow the instructions at Template:Autoblock. DrKiernan (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Kent Wang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

67.215.232.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

{{blocked proxy}}:

Blocking administrator: Zzuuzz (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: I've given you IP-block exempt user rights as it's unwise to lift the ip range block on a proxy. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kent Wang. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kent Wang. 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)[reply]

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of New Monastery of San Juan de la Peña

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, New Monastery of San Juan de la Peña, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CoconutOctopus talk 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Monastery of San Juan de la Peña moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to New Monastery of San Juan de la Peña. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it has no textual content. 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: New Monastery of San Juan de la Peña (October 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by -noah- was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs to be covered by three independent, reliable sources. For more information, please consult WP:GNG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:New Monastery of San Juan de la Peña and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Noah ^💬 22:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kent Wang! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Noah ^💬 22:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]