Nvtuil

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

So you have a point of view, and I'm trying to be more neutral after you pointed out the bias in my original edit. However, we've started an edit war, so rather than continue this and degrade Wikipedia I've decided to ask for admin arbitration. Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, let's involve them please as I am tired of having to explain to you alone. Your last edits were reverted by me as you clearly didn't even read the source and angrily vandalising and making false accusations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033143295 Nvtuil (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nvtuil, thanks for opening an account. This certainly makes it a lot more convenient for conducting discussions. I will be giving an ARBIPA alert for this account since the regulations require it. But it is no different from the old alert at the IP account. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nvtuil, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nvtuil! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello, I'm RedPanda25. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Simla Convention that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RedPanda25 02:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

One

He makes comment towards me with an uncivil tone and I am simply telling him to not make such unnecessary but rude comments attacking my character. I didn't attack his character but reminding him to not do that to me. Why did you not delete his uncivil comments? Taking sides? Nvtuil (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If I said the exact same thing back at him. That wouldn't make me any better. So I took the high road and told him to Not do that. How is that wrong? Nvtuil (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits on Debt-trap diplomacy

Hi, I'd just like to thank you for your input on the article; just, when making edit summaries, please take care to keep them short. They are, after all, merely summaries. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I just saw your userpage, and is it safe to assume that you are also User:49.180.157.223 and User:49.180.169.4? It's difficult to keep track of more than one account, especially when IPs get inconsistent, but the general style of edits tracks. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have seen your previous recent edit on how you went to label the criticism as being "some criticism". Emphasis on "some". Despite there's major criticism from top western institutions who shows evidence and explains in detail, why the concept was never valid and baseless. The criticism is not "some" but Major from many reputable studies. It's biased to downplay the criticisms from so many top institutions and try to label it as "some". And I was never interested in any edit war but have no hesitation to report other's vandalism as I understand that this topic is prone to lies of omission by politically motivated editors. And even more reason why editors like me with detailed summaries, are essential. Nvtuil (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

First, please tag me into your replies, and indent, so I get notified when you reply. Now, my explanation for some is twofold: first, it simplifies the lede; second, these papers do not originate from institutions themselves, but rather academics or employees who happen to be affiliated with these institutions. To imply that these papers are products of institutions themselves necessarily implies that said institutions have issued official statements to that effect; this is false. Now, I urge you to, after my explanation, take me in good faith. I hope we can resolve this amicably, and without resorting to third-party mediation (the arbitration committee does not have jurisdiction over these matters). Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to move all of this onto the article talk page; see you there; tag me in. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 20:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iseult I may have forgotten how to tag properly. It's been a while so apologies if I get this wrong. That still doesn't really justify why you wrote "some" as if the theory is mostly sound with little criticism. New readers would interpret the criticism as few and insignificant. If you had personally read the actual studies as I have. It's not possible to think the theory is not debunked. And why I took issue with the word "some". As it's actually difficult to find any reputable university or research group that still claims debt trap diplomacy in year 2020 - 2021. It's overwhelmingly the majority if not ALL of top universities and reputable think tanks that nowadays tries to tell the public why the theory never had any evidence to back it in the first place. Yet the wikipedia page seems to be outdated and not caught up. Nvtuil (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; my weekdays are really busy. (Tagging is [[User:|]] with a username in to the right of the vertical bar). In any case, I don't see a consensus as such there. I'll use the more prominent search results as a proxy for consensus. Here we have:

• Pro (DeBoom 2019, [1], [2])
• Anti (Brautigam 2020, Jones and Hameiri 2020, Singh 2019, along with articles citing them)
• Something more nuanced (Carmody 2019, Ferchen and Perera 2019, [3])

I'm interested in the last of these three, as they center on debt traps, while extant, may not actually be intentional on China's part; that seems to be the consensus now, but that's not our place to determine. "Some", then, is appropriate, given the lack of clear consensus; it remains to show, succinctly, the two other arguments (anti, nuanced). Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iseult I am not sure what you're asking of me. What I do know is that there's many experts. Some making claims that are completely baseless or just outright wrong. And others using actual evidence and studies to prove those experts wrong. Ie;

In 2017, BBC published a narrative that Sri Lanka was a debt trap and they heavily promoted shallow "claims" but not any actual evidence or studies. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40044113

In 2021, a scholar used actual evidence based studies to check the facts and argued that Sri Lanka was not a debt trap at all, and the narrative was just misleading to the point of lies

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

Obviously they cannot BOTH be correct. Hence I believe that Scholars who actually have peer reviewed studies, that show the evidence and cite thorough studies, should be trusted. Whereas media that promotes the debt trap diplomacy theory but show no evidence. That should ring alarm bells as people do lie especially in politically charged topics.

And why speculations and people who are just making up theories but provided no or just wrong information, should never be allowed to distort the wikipedia page. I believe studies like rhodium group, Scholars like Deborah, etc deserve to be the authoritative experts as they have backed their explanation and conclusions with undeniably solid scholarly research. That's my take on who to trust at wikipedia. Thanks for your reply. Nvtuil (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(I've taken the liberty of indenting your comments for readability). Here, what you've cited as evidence is evidence which I've already gone over in my categorization and further description. I've said what I said about the sources in my previous comment, with specific reference to sources cutting against your position. But, most critically, here, on Wikipedia, we do not make wholesale determinations on which group of sources to include or exclude based on original research. Instead, we describe contradicting schools of thought fairly, with their due WP:WEIGHT, except for fringe minorities, which are not present in this article. I must quote specifically:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

In short, we do not determine what deserves or does not deserves inclusion based on original conclusions, and what real academic dispute there is must be presented in a strictly neutral fashion. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 03:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A neutral manner is not to pretend that baseless speculations that have already been debunked by actual studies, should still have any weight on Wikipedia.

It's not your place to distort the truth and to hide and downplay the actual large number of authoritative sources that constantly shows the same message that the evidence is solid. That debt trap diplomacy is a wrongful narrative yet it's obvious that there's no shortage of people wanting to promote that myth and try to downplay or reduce the criticism as being infactual.

What's infactual is hearsay that HAS ALREADY BEEN FIRMLY DEBUNKED BY SCHOLARS.

Not Just one scholar. But by so many actual studies with evidence and I agree it's not our place to hide the professional conclusions.

We should be quoting Chatham's house and noting down its solid conclusions.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy

We should be putting the verfied data study by Rhodium Group that debunks the myth and etc. These should be in the lede as it's backed solidly by objective and thorough studies and it's not our place to claim a narrative differently from them as they are the ones who actually did the studies and research and published their findings based in real evidence, unlike the other baseless experts.

Nvtuil (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we seem to be at an impasse, I'm more than happy to seek mediation via WP:3O. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that's actually necessary. In 2020, the articles in mainstream media are already stating that there's no evidence behind debt trap diplomacy to begin with. In the next few years, more articles will say the same thing. It's inevitable that the wikipedia page will evolve to reflect that reality without ambiguity. The editors who want to preserve the impression that debt trap diplomacy is a real thing, is ultimately fighting a losing battle as wikipedia will have too many sources and articles saying the exact same thing this year. The Atlantic article is not anything new. Just the media finally came catching up to the facts at last. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ Nvtuil (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the function of the article in that respect; I've already addressed your linked article. If you don't specifically object, I'd like to present this for mediation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 04:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iseult I am not really an enthusiastic editor so not sure why you need my input. Why don't you FIRST write a proposal of what you think should be in the intro and I will be sure to check it out and tell you my honest feedback. I am not even sure in the first place what you are even trying to propose here as you claim an edit war, despite I have literally unedited ZERO of your edits. Not one edit have you made, was reverted by me so this isn't even an edit war....yet. lol

Nonetheless, my only minor gripes with your past edits were that you wrote the criticism as "some" and I have already made it crystal clear that I feel such a word is biased and makes the criticism to be regarded as *minor". This is not right given the criticism is from reputed academic groups like Chatham house and Rhodium Group, who UNLIKE the other scholars endorsing the theory, ACTUALLY did actual research and studies to verify the facts and they strongly debunked the theory with evidence. The other scholars who keep claiming debt trap diplomacy never even had minimal evidence but instead, have LIED EXCESSIVELY, (not small but a lot) and called Sri Lankan port an "asset seizure" as a result of Sri Lanka not being able to pay back Chinese loans that were designed to overwhelm sri lanka. That is now deemed FACTUALLY incorrect and SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA due to being COMPLETE FABRICATIONS OF FACTS and so keeping such claims and scholars, will only continue to mislead. Because for one, sri lanka port was a lease, not an asset seizure, and if Sri lank had issues paying back debt, it was more to western institutions rather than to China, and lastly Sir lanka never even defaulted on any loans. So many things about that story are outright false. A shown in this Atlantic ARticle - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

You SIMPLY can not have alternative facts that have already been debunked mixed with the actual truth. Hence my proposal for the lede is that we prioritize evidence-based studies FIRST especially those with solid reputations. Rhodium group, Chatham house, Scholars from peer-reviewed studies should be the ones to be trusted as factual as they are unlikely to not be true. And the ones that have been debunked AS complete utter misleading lies by their evidence-based studies should no longer have a place on Wikipedia and there are no excuses for promoting the hearsay and baseless speculations in this day and age when we KNOW the evidence backed studies have already utterly debunked it solidly.

In recent decades China has emerged as a leader in international development finance, with the potential to provide sorely needed funds to address major global developmental gaps. However, not everyone is optimistic about this new source of lending. A narrative of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ has emerged to describe Chinese lending to developing countries – most ardently advanced by the United States – contending that China seeks to ensnare smaller countries with onerous levels of debt in order to realise neocolonial aims. This article argues that the theory of debt-trap diplomacy does not accurately describe Chinese finance. First, investigating China–Africa relations, it will demonstrate that Chinese loans are not a major driver of debt distress. Second, it will demonstrate that China does not engage in predatory behaviour towards borrowing countries, using debt to facilitate takeovers of strategic assets and natural resources, or to promote military expansion. Finally, comparing Chinese and Western financial relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, it will demonstrate that, in contrast to the debt-trap narrative, China’s non-interventionist approach has opened space for developing countries, particularly those with governments facing hostility from the US and its allies.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318

Nvtuil (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Life is getting busy, so perhaps we can revisit this in May/June? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 04:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

So clearly you took issue with my formatting with regards to needing citations, and you reverted my edits in retribution. 1) You need to tone down your behavior. 2) I should explain why I put in the "citation needed" tags where I did; it was not a random set of insertions as you allege. Basically every single statement presented as a fact needs to be sourced/cited; occasionally this can come down to every single sentence in a paragraph, or several clauses within the same sentence. Barring that, a citation can be used at the end of a paragraph/section to indicate that the entire paragraph/section comes from a single set of sources. However, because this is not always clear, I tend to err on the side of requiring as many citations/references as possible, thus the large quantity of "citation needed" tags. In the case of the Sri Lanka section of debt-trap diplomacy, the end of the paragraph (prior to my edits about potential critiques of Deborah Bräutigam's rather broad claims) lacked any citations, which suggested to me that the entirety of the preceding information that lacked citations was unsourced. You will observe that rather than claim that the uncited information was "original research," I only indicated that such information needed references to be presented as factual information. You have since inserted the necessary citations (though you rely only on a single source, that in and of itself is not a big problem here) so I have rearranged the paragraphs a little to make the presentation a bit clearer.Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bro, if you got issues. Take it to the talk page where I had especially created a dedicated space for you to reply to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Off_topic_and_original_research_is_not_cool

But in summary, you wrote stuff like claiming Chinese was doing a "99-year colonization of a port on sovereign Sri Lankan territory". That wording is not in your given source and also it's a lease. Not actual colonisation which are your own words.

Also you used your own original research. You had accused a scholar for deliberately not talking about a Japanese topic despite why should she talk about Japan when her given article was only about China and Sri Lanka. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ Your edits was both ridiculous and just a fallacious character attack on someone you disliked.

And then you claimed that many sentences of her research were uncited despite the source of her research was already clearly given. You seem to have a grudge against that scholar and abusing edits to call her research as uncited information and then saying that she deliberately didn't talk about Japan. Despite she has no reason to even talk about Japan. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ And your own given source doesn't attack her at all so it is also your own original research.

Anyways, like i said. Take it to the article talk page if you disagree.Nvtuil (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

1) I re-phrased the problematic wording to eliminate biased language in good faith, and you still deleted the entire segment, even though it was relevant, reorganized, and properly sourced/cited. That is vandalism (or the start of a revert war, depending on the point of view). Do it again and you will be reported and flagged. I notice that you rewrote the entire first subsection based on your POV, which suggests to me that you may be a biased editor and might not edit certain articles in good faith. Note that the section should be presented as two sides of a debate, since the question isn't actually resolved (you have some credible sources, but not many; I have some credible sources, which cannot simply be dismissed; thus, the debate isn't over and we shouldn't present the article as if the debate is over). Ecthelion83 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

2) I did not accuse a scholar of intentionally not talking about a Japanese topic (note that after you brought it to my attention, I fixed it). The fact that Japanese loans to Sri Lanka were treated differently that the Chinese loans to Sri Lanka is relevant, and Brautigam, for whatever reason, did not address this. Maybe it was because, like you said, her article was about Sri Lanka and China specifically, and loans from other places to Sri Lanka wasn't in her scope. But the fact remains that Sri Lanka has treated its debt obligations differently, and as a result this brings suspicion on the terms of the Chinese loans. That needs to be discussed, or at least noted.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

3) As for stuff not being cited, like I said, there is a style of citation. Either cite every sentence (i.e. every clause presented as a fact) or cite once at the end of a paragraph. However, because a single citation at the end of a paragraph can be misleading (in that people might write an entire paragraph of unsourced information and then include a single sentence of sourced information at the end and put a citation there making it look like the entire paragraph is sourced), I prefer that every item presented as a fact, be cited or sourced.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

4) It is evident from your typing that English may not be your first language ("bro, if you got issues"?). Note that when referring to authors, public figures, etc., you refer to them by their title and their last name, even if you know these individuals personally and are on a first-name basis with them. That is the accepted style of presentation. If they have positions, use proper grammar/spelling/mechanics to present their position the first time you mention them. Your edits to Deborah Brautigam's introduction clearly indicate that you are unaware of this, which is why I suggest that English is not your first language. You should be careful, then, when editing the English-language Wikipedia articles. And you should check that attitude of yours. Announcing wild accusations without even checking to see whether or not I corrected myself is inappropriate.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ecthelion83 Wow.Lay off the accusations and character attacks. English is my first language and fyi, this isn't Korea where people write formally. In Australia, people can easily understand stuff like "bro, if you got issues"?

Ironically it only reveals your own lack of exposure to colloquial English slang if you think that's not how English speakers type words and short messages.

Nonetheless do go to talk page that's dedicated for us https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#False_information_added_by_editors_and_edit_warring

and quit edit warring and adding in false information and hypocritically accusing me of vandalising. Go to talk and discuss.

As you're the only one adding in false debunked information. If you think your info is true then give sources and provide your argument on Talk page. Except your info is not true and I already provided real sources that shows you don't know what you're on about. Nvtuil (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me start with an apology - I assumed, incorrectly it turns out, that English was not your first language because of your failure to recognize the encyclopedic styles used in Wikipedia, and your use of colloquial/familiar language in Wikipedia (which, you will discover, is common to many editors for whom English is not a primary language). Wikipedia isn't a messenger/chat service, but rather is a collaborative project (so colloquial/familiar language is generally unacceptable for communication here). It wasn't a personal attack. What is a personal attack, however, is you casting aspersions (the reference to Korea is borderline racism and very much a personal attack, because clearly you've seen my user page and assumed things about me that are not true based on what you saw there; see WP:PA) I admit that my original edit was careless, but that everything I have done on the page in question, after you brought it to my attention, has since been much more careful. However, you seem to be persisting in your attitude (your subsequent edits are clearly POV, which is generally unacceptable in Wikipedia without consensus - you are incorrect in that you have consensus; see the talk page, where some other people have also weighed in) that you have some sort of final say or the lock on the "truth" of the matter. You don't, at least not yet.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am half Korean and half Singaporean. But born and raised in Australia. So I am perfectly aware of how it's very common to expect proper formal language when conversing in Korean because my mum teaches me Korean. So don't go bs me in claiming it's a personal attack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_speech_levels

What's a personal attack is you rudely accusing me that English isn't my first language. Despite your reasoning is just absurd.

And you consistently lie and smear me. Like claiming that I lied about what a source said.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033141920

And i didn't point this out before. But you lied again when you said you "did not accuse a scholar of intentionally not talking about a Japanese topic"

Um, what is this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1032650557

It's your own original research to attack that scholar.

And there is so much more but nonetheless, go to the Article talk page and stop starting petty arguments and removing info you have no right to remove. Nvtuil (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You somehow assume that I am using formal English in Wikipedia because of some connection you make to Korean (Wikipedia uses formal/academic English as much as possible, and that is why I write this way). That is a personal attack (see the first part of WP:PA). I presumed (wrongly) that English was not your first language because you didn't seem to understand the writing styles used in Wikipedia. It was a fair assumption to make (not absurd like you say), but that was my mistake. It is not actually a personal attack, but an incorrect assumption based on your actions. I know nothing about you as a person (and frankly, I don't care because it's not my business), and was not commenting about you as a person. I was commenting on your usage of English in Wikipedia, which, as I said earlier, tries to use formal/academic English as much as possible, and how it is different from the accepted norm. Calling me a liar is another personal attack. I did not accuse a scholar of intentionally not talking about a Japanese topic - if you read that edit carefully, I do suggest it, but that is not the same as an accusation. There could be several reasons why Brautigam didn't talk about other subjects, and if she knew about other deals but decided that wasn't within her scope, then she ignored them on purpose for good reasons. What I said was to suggest that Brautigam ignored these other deals, but didn't explain why. If you think what I said was an attack, you might have a hard time with the version of English used in Wikipedia. I think you misunderstand what is original research and what is an attack (for clarity, let me define it for you: "original research" is a conclusion or synthesis of information/data that is not supported by citations, and the suggestion that a researcher ignored other information is not an attack, but rather it is an observation, because like I mentioned before, there could be good reasons for ignoring that other information). Also you need to take your own advice and look at the article's talk page before re-writing the article in your POV. You do not yet have consensus.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That is your own original research to go use an accusational tone implying Deborah wrongfully didn't talk about Japan.

And whether you deliberately lied or accidentally lied. It makes no difference here.

You accused me of lying about what the source said. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033141920

You owe me an apology for that as you are hypocritically wrong to say that I made a "flat-out lie". I await your apology.

And again, go to the talk page of the article and present your argument for why you disagree with specific edits. I have little interest wasting my time arguing further about pointless things like whether or not English is my first language, etc.

Nvtuil (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I did read the Chatham House article more thoroughly. And you were right, more or less (I'm not going to argue the nuance of the timing of a paper being skeptical and a paper making an observation that a claim has not come to pass - the Chatham House paper was actually doing the latter by pointing out that fears of Hambantota port militarization haven't come to pass). I apologize. I should also apologize for one other thing: you are new to Wikipedia, and I didn't realize this. I was so used to debating/arguing with sockpuppets and trolls that when you started using a messenger/chat style I assumed incorrectly that you were one of these, but from what I can see now you seem to be doing things in good faith, just a little unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's style formatting. So my apologies - I assumed incorrectly, and I should have known better. I do want to comment that your style of writing/response tends to come across as combative (seems like some other people felt the same way, and it was one of the other things that made me mistakenly assume you were a troll), and I had to look at your activity to see that this was just the way you talk, and not a reflection of attitude. Perhaps in the future you could consider writing in a way that is more collaborative and less combative (partly because it can be misunderstood as being disrespectful). In the meantime, welcome to Wikipedia, and once again, my apologies. Ecthelion83 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The paper couldn't really be clearer in that they disagreed with the claim and saw it as "clearly erroneous". Those were the exact words they had used to describe the claim. "Erroneous" means they believed the claim was clearly wrong..

Finally, the claim that China could use Hambantota as a naval base is clearly erroneous. Sri Lankan politicians and diplomats have repeatedly insisted that this never featured in their discussions with Beijing. As Sri Lanka’s ambassador to China has stated flatly, ‘China never asks us. We never offered it’

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy/4-sri-lanka-and-bri

And apology accepted. I hope that we can work together constructively and fairly. Nvtuil (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Adrian Zenz. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. In particular, please review MOS:CLAIM. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not in the wrong for making edits clearer unlike the guy making accusations at me. Who has clearly vandalised my edits by deliberately making it hard to read. Mikehawk, You are describing Only yourself mate.

I added in the following edits

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1016272237

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1016084038

The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been sourced from Istiqal, an Uyghur exile media group based in Turkey, who had claimed to have gotten chinese leaked documents.

Because you had made unnecessary edits to the previous edits by making it excessively hard to read. Before that, you had deleted that information. And then later, you edited it in such a way that nobody can read it easily.

You wrote;

The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been based upon Japanese public reporting,[1] including reporting from Newsweek Japan,[17][18] on documents leaked by an anonymous Xinjiang security official[1] to a Turkish Uyghur exile media group

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1016142123

Nobody can understand what you just wrote. People can understand my edits easily. Clearly my edits were drastically easier to read unlike yours. That is obvious so I appreciate that you quit making these hypocritical smears at me or I will report you to wiki board for them to investigate if you continue to bully me with these hypocritical false gaslighting statements like that again.

Nvtuil (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Your recent editing history at Debt-trap diplomacy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I know you self-reverted your last revert, but you are still way over 3 reverts today. You need to cool down. Take a break. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Technically I didn't revert your edit as I reverted back within 2 mins. So Plus one and minus one = 0. Despite that Princeton magazine article is just as, if not more professional than corporate media articles. I self reverted only because there is no need to argue on it. Another source (cited by that Princeton paper) is already given. And proves the magazine article was not lying at all. But I saw no practical need to argue as I already proved my case.

And you are honestly the reason why I stay here. I could have easily not be editing at all. But when you go questionably remove entire sentences. It's not the spirit of Edit warring to have issues with your editing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033284245 You removed that info despite you could had easily just put in the direct source, already provided by that Princeton paper. Which is what I did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033291549

That's not Edit warring but just correcting wrongful edits that removes massive amount of info using a superficial reason. :)Nvtuil (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I know that you don't want me to edit as you clearly and strongly disagree with my firm take that Debt Trap Diplomacy narrative, is false. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/ But I will take your advice. I will take a self imposed break for at least 1 week and hope that things can cool down. Because this heated environment is not ideal for honest and constructive editing. And frankly I feel like we are just butting heads constantly and need a reset. Nvtuil (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are your contributions to the Debt-trap diplomacy article. I count some 48 edits in the 12 days of July, an average of 4 edits per day, much of which is contentious, trying to sell a story of a "myth". The New York Times published a story in 2018 titled "How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port", and the reporter, a well-known one, researcher her subject in Hambantota, and cited numerous Sri Lankan officials and experts. The Sri Lankan business webite called "The Asset" wrote as early as 2016 stating that there was a "debt-to-equity swap". There are literally hundreds of sources stating similar ideas. You don't get to erase all of this just because a handful of writers start questioning those perspectives. When you notice that there is disagreement among editors, you are required by Wikipedia policy to generate WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. That is how Wikipedia works.

I have no problem with you editing. But at the moment you are just trying to bulldoze a POV.

Enjoy your break. And let us hope that you will pay more attention to CONSENSUS when you come back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I will give this Consensus building a fair go. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033568723 Nvtuil (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Note the older articles were during a time when research was limited. Big media like NYT indeed called sri Lanka port as proof of debt trap diplomacy back then.

However in more recent years, there have been newer articles with updated research, debunking the claim strongly. They come from reputable Western Think tanks. Who have no reason to lie about this. They obviously cannot both be right. Only one of them is telling the truth. But nonetheless please discuss it over at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Where I gave all my reasoning Thank you. Nvtuil (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Debt-trap diplomacy, you may be blocked from editing. Amigao (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Look pal. I am not trying to be difficult. But that doesn't mean you can treat me like a pushover. As of time of writing - these are my last 6 edits on the article that caused so much hatred towards me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035159752 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035159495 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035157432 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035145644 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035011054 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035008103

You say I do disruptive editing yet the contested edits is reverting editors like yourself deleting large amounts of info and then giving “odd” rules for your reasoning. You constantly removed all the same info above but I was the one who later (re-added) it back in constantly. Tell me, in what way did I violate any rules? The only person breaking rules while claiming that I didn’t follow rules. Is yourself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035011054 Here are just the most recent edits of you removing info. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1034990392 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035140985

I go to talk to discuss indepth on why you believe Moore is an unreliable source and why you removed so much info from Moore's explanation yet you don't even give fair reasoning but repeating the rules (as if they are warranted when they are not) I only call them arbitrary when I believe you are just using the rules deceptively. I follow the rules and hope you do too. I don’t follow deceptive manipulation.

What possible reason did you have to remove research and cut in half Moore's reasoning? If anything, there are so many edits by other editors who push the claim of debt trap diplomacy as if they are proven established facts. That is what violates the rules of NPOV. I on the other hand, don't even bother to challenge the bulk of it and only add in edits of (real research that fact checks such claims) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035159495. You’re the disruptive editor FOR REMOVING THEM CONSISTENTLY and rapidly. I understand that when it comes to research that disproves debt trap diplomacy. Many editors in the past have removed them completely or minimized them so much. And I am the very few editors still having to go add it back in. (None of my edits were infactual or not backed by top tier sources) I wouldn't be surprised that in the next year. Editors like yourself would have deleted all the edits I mentioned above. Yet again for the second or third time. And I HAVE to add it back in just like before. Ironically I am the only one here fighting the actual disruptive editor who tries to selectively hide all real research that debunks debt trap diplomacy and then threatens to ban me because MY only crime is to add that research in. And it’s ridiculous because at UNI in Australia. We are all taught that debt trap diplomacy is a misleading concept that would only harm understanding of global economics.

Yet it seems that any editor who adds in western research and questions other editors on why they have removed so much solid research entirely (not speculations or empty claims like Chellaney). They get threats constantly to intimidate them from editing further. If anything, I should be the one telling you to stop disruptive editing as you STILL as of today, have given ZERO FAIR REASONING on why you censored half of what Moore said in the Quartz article. Yet instead threatening me with bans or telling me that I should leave wikipedia, without even giving a single detailed reasoning on why Moore's words violate policies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Add_in_the_full_proper_counterargument_by_Moore If you want to delete everything that Deborah and Moore said. Go ahead. But don't threaten me again or try to intimidate me from reverting such deletion of real research.

Nvtuil (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As a cordial suggestion, you probably should review WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Amigao (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and frankly I would tell you to also stop deleting the same research. http://www.sais-cari.org/publications-briefing-papers-bulletins

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035352355 Nvtuil (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is not with Brautigam's underlying research. That has been summarized in multiple places in the article. However, there is an issue with your citing two opinion pieces - one in the Washington Post and one in The Diplomat - as the basis of a statement in Wikivoice. That is not permissible per WP:WIKIVOICE. The better path is for you to cite WP:BESTSOURCES as the basis for any statement in Wikivoice. - Amigao (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Diplomat is not a reliable source? Deborah herself wrote the WP article and she is not an unreliable source. We know she is a very respectable and recognised scholar who even has her own wiki page and her list of prestiguous scholar awards that neither of us have. And I attributed her name and not stating what she says as if they are the facts. Her research was saying that and I see no plausible reason for her to lie. And also look at the article chapter on "Other countries". It literally just names many chinese BRI projects as if implying that they are all debt traps. That is not permissible per WP:WIKIVOICE as it's implying that all those projects are now confirmed debt traps when not a single one has any evidence that they are debt traps. I don't see you removing them despite they are so much worse violations of WP:WIKIVOICE to go put them in. Nvtuil (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

As another cordial suggestion, the kind of edit that you made in the Latin America section is one that you will have far more success with here. You cited a reputable academic study directly (again, WP:BESTSOURCES) and you provided in-text attribution about when and where it came from (i.e., a center affiliated with Boston University). If you do that, you'll find that your edits will be far less likely to be challenged than if you cited a piece in the opinion section of a newspaper. - Amigao (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I had added in a direct study this time. And if Washington Post opinion articles are not reliable despite Deborah herself wrote that piece and has no reason to lie about her research 🙄. Why does the current wiki article allow sources like

Pomfret, John (27 August 2018). "China's debt traps around the world are a trademark of its imperialist ambitions". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 15 September 2018.

It's also a Washington opinion piece that violates WP:WIKIVOICE as unlike Deborah. The author doesn't back his facts with research but raw speculations. That violates the rules alot worse than Deborah merely citing her professional study. Seems awfully like double standards. Nvtuil (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Fishing industry in China

I reverted your change without discussion to the title for this article. As set out in WP:REQMOVE, the title of an article should be changed without discussion only if it is not likely to be controversial. In this case, you can see a template at the bottom of the article giving navigational links to dozens of other articles with names also starting with "Fishing industry in... ". There is also another large series of articles starting with "Aquaculture in... ", such as Aquaculture in China. These articles cover aquaculture and fish farming industries, and also have their own navigation template. If you want to combine these articles in the case of China, then for consistency you must also argue for combining all the articles for the other countries in the same way. This is a big issue, and would need discussion. There could be a lot of work making sure all the merging of these articles happened in consistent ways. And to me, at any rate, I can think of number of reasons why it would be better to leave things as they are. Regards.— Epipelagic (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, I think we can minimally agree that 'Fishing' is not the same thing as 'aquaculture'. They may get the same outcome = (fish) but the methods are clearly separate things.

And if you think my edit is not suitable. Then we will have to agree to disagree. You know my reason for the edit. The title was incorrect and (seafood industry) was undoubtedly more accurate. * I gave reasoning on my edit description. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1047738043

But it's clear you really don't like the change. And this feels much more a debate on subjective taste. I see you had been editing that page like over a decade ago. Guessing maybe you feel attached to the title and why you feel I am being out of line for fixing the title so easily.

I don't know what to say..I saw an article that is labelled (Fishing industry in China) and assumed it would be an article talking about fishing only. Except it also has a section where it mentions aquaculture. (Fishing industry) didn't seem right.. But if you feel strongly about keeping the title.. I won't fight you on this one this time. But don't think that title is correct. And feel my edit wasn't unreasonable or irrational at all.

At any case, there really should be a new article then created for the entire Seafood industry in China. Since it's a noteworthy topic. One that talks about the imports from overseas, the seaweed industry, consumer market trends and growths. Currently Wikipedia lacks that article. Nvtuil (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you're right. It could stand rethinking after 13 years. But I'm not just making drive-by comments off the top of my head. I've written other articles about fisheries, aquaculture and seafood, though mostly long ago. I'm just pointing out there is already an existing structure across Wikipedia for articles related to fisheries, aquaculture and seafood. This means there is an issue if you just want to restructure the articles related to China, unless you restructure the rest as well. In the commercial world, the term "fishing industry" is often taken to include fish farming and aquaculture, just as the term "fish" is often taken to include aquatic invertebrates, such as cuttlefish, starfish, crayfish and jellyfish. I'm not saying you don't have a point and the structure of the articles can't be improved. I am pointing out that making the changes in a way consistent with the other existing articles is a bit messier than it might seem at first glance, and given the scope, would require a large commitment in time. — Epipelagic (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fraser Island, K'Gari and Gari

I welcome your enthusiasm to contribute to Wikpedia, but recently you have made many changes to articles (renaming articles and changing the content of articles) to replace "Fraser Island" with "K'Gari" (or Kgari, a misspelling?). You have asserted in edit summaries that the name of the island and the locality have recently been officially changed but without providing any citation for this name change in the article content, the talk page, nor in the edit summary. You have made similar uncited claims of a recent name change on Talk:Fraser Island. The naming of the island and the locality have not changed recently which can be verified at the official Queensland Place Names database, which shows the island is still officially called Fraser Island with K'Gari and Gari as alternative Indigenous names (these alternative names were added in 2011, hardly recent, and are the names used by two local Indigenous groups). The name of the locality is Fraser Island without any Indigenous alternatives (yet you have replaced that locality name in the Happy Valley article, again without citation). The webpage for proposed and recent changes shows that renaming of the island and/or the locality has not been recently been proposed nor changed. You appear to have continued to make these changes even when a discussion about the renaming of Fraser Island to K'gari was being disputed on the Talk page of that article, a discussion you were well aware of as you contributed to it. When an issue is the subject of a dispute, you should cease to make changes and contribute to building consensus instead. Please stop making these edits and consider undoing your edits that were based on unverified claims of a recent name change. A search for citations for the name change would hopefully have revealed that what has recently changed was the name of the World Heritage listing to "K'Gari (Fraser Island)" (see [4]). It might have been reasonable to have changed the name of any mentions of the the World Heritage listing accompanied with such a citation, but the name of the island and the locality are unaffected by the change of the name of the World Heritage listing (the naming of places in Qld being under the control of the Queensland Government). Perhaps in the future the name of the island or the locality may change to make one of the Indigenous names the primary name, but when that happens, the proposed change will be advertised for public comment on the webpage I mention above and the decision to rename (or not rename) will later be published there and, if the decision is to rename, then the official place names database will be updated accordingly. If/when that occurs, we can revisit the discussion of renaming these places on Wikipedia. I welcome your enthusiasm to contribute to Wikipedia, but ask you to take more care in regard to verification, citation and the consensus-building process. Kerry (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Morning Kerry, K'gari is the correct spelling.

https://www.broadsheet.com.au/national/travel/article/fraser-island-now-officially-known-its-traditional-butchulla-name-kgari

And I respect your opinion but quite frankly it's not even up to us. Look at the gov websites, the tourist company websites and they have all renamed it to K'gari. The aboriginal people are celebrating because the gov has approved the name change and rolling the changes out. Some (small minority) of gov websites may be slow to update the changes but they will all get there.

It seems pointless to find a consensus for a fact that is inevitable and publicly announced by the gov. And I be shocked beyond disbelief if the gov goes back on their word afterwards. Btw, it wasn't me who first changed the Fraser Island article to "K'gari". That was actually someone else before I came but I have been updating the other articles that mention (Fraser island) and changing it to K'gari since others were already doing it. Honestly I didn't think there would even be a dispute over an issue that's bleeding obvious. Nvtuil (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In what way is it "bleeding obvious"? Did you bother to look at the official Qld Govt place names database, provided above? That's authoritative. If you have any other government citation, present it. Even the webpage you quote above (not a Qld Govt announcement) clearly leads with "... the Butchulla Aboriginal Corporation is another step closer to having the Unesco World Heritage area’s original name permanently restored" indicating it is referring to the name of the world heritage listing not the island. Please provide reliable citations. Kerry (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bleeding obvious to me then. Ie. if a climate change denier tells me that climate change is wrong. I don't wait for consensus as I know they are being foolish. However you're right to a degree about me, waiting for full wiki consensus. Arguably in law, if a gov publicly (verbally) announces a name change (under their sovereignty) is approved. Legally the name is changed on that exact date. A contract doesn't need to be in writing to be valid. It can be verbally made. It's only a matter of time when the lesser beuacratic paperwork gets filled out, which indeed takes time. But waiting for them to finish all paperwork, can take a while. So the question is when is the best time to edit the changes? Already we see people from Tourist companies, many Gov websites, etc recently and predominantly referring the island to (K'gari). They already decided to change. When should Wikipedia reflect the change? If the question is when it is legal. Nobody is going to sue someone for referring and recognising the island as K'gari today (after the Gov publicly committed to it), but however on dealing with formal beuacratic official documents and contracts - they should refer it as Fraser Island only for now. So it's indeed a debate and not a solid (yes or no) answer and I agree that on this case, a Wikipedia consensus would be smart tho it's practically arguing over minor details because in reality, the aboriginal people won and the name change is official. Your arguments are hardly compelling proof that the name change isn't official but shows the name change hasn't been rolled out instantly yet. But legally the name is changed on the date of public declaration. So for those who fight hard to reject the name change, they will increasingly be fighting an uphill battle to nitpick declining counterarguments and we also both know all my edits on K'gari would be inevitably disputed by fewer and fewer people in the next few months so my advice is to leave it alone to avoid heartbreak if you're clinging to "Fraser island" as the title.

— Australia's Fraser Island is the latest destination to have its Aboriginal name restored.
The world's largest sand island, which is located off the coast of Queensland state about 250 km (155 miles) north of Brisbane, will now be officially known as K'Gari.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/fraser-island-australia-kgari-butchulla-intl-hnk/index.html Nvtuil (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alaexis_¿question? 14:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink I am not the one reverting true well sourced information. My job is to better understand the future and personally I have no idea if Acupuncture works or not. That is why early animal studies for medical purposes, are sorely needed on that page. So people can follow the research and findings. My edit was very relevant to the page and removing it by calling it a fringe topic, is NOT a valid excuse. Acupuncture is a medical interest and people should know about medical research on the area. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1050806968 Nvtuil (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

reverting against consensus, even when you 100% believe you are right, is still a form of edit warring and could get you blocked. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Take it to the Talk Page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acupuncture#Animal_study Nvtuil (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing that you reverted it. You should at least give a reason and address my section on the article talk page. I created a place to fairly discuss it and gave fair notice to you and one other editor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1050826124

But if you two don't respond after many days or the discussion fails, then I will have to take this issue to further external channels. Kind regards. Nvtuil (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Closest virus to SARS-CoV-2?

Are you sure RaTG13, with 96.1% similiraty overall is not the closest virus to SARS-CoV-2? Maybe the new studies of the Laos bats' viruses are refering to them being closer in certain regions, not in the overall similarity. Please help me confirm this. Forich (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Forich Yes, I am very certain on that. I also already provided 2 sources in my edit that made it abundantly clear that the Laos Virus had 96.8% nucleotide similarity to SARS-CoV-2. Which hence makes it the closest known virus so far. The Laos virus has 0.7% more similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than with RaTG13 (96.1%) similarity. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-origins-closest-viruses-to-sars-cov-2-found-in-laos Nvtuil (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, the medicalnewstoday.com source does say one of the BANAL has 96.8%. The nature news piece attributes one of the author, Eloit, saying BANAL-52 is 96.8% close. I find it strange that the actual preprint lacks the number (I even checked the supplements), but it was probably an omission that will hopefully get fixed during peer review. Forich (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Glad to have helped. :) Nvtuil (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleting

Deleting stuff from your talk page counts as evidence that you have read it. And please report me, I have nothing to fear. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't give me a wall of so many strawman arguments then. I never denied evolution nor the other numerous strawman arguments you threw at me. Nvtuil (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

These aren't strawmen, please read WP:QUACKS. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Look at my edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051655234

Vast 98 percent I deleted plus were solid strawman arguments. What I did was make one argument on Talk Page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051652738 yet it triggered such a reaction. And suggest you discuss it maturely over there as that is what the acupuncture talk Page is meant for instead of trolling me here with so many fallacious strawman arguments. Nvtuil (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Spurious accusations of trolling are trolling themselves. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Omg, really? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051658364

It is normal that when editors are unable to reach any kind of agreement on the content issue in question on Talk page - a user can later request outside input on-wiki by following the advice at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help.

Nvtuil (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ditto, I have reported you back.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1051662666 Nvtuil (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The Battle at Lake Changjin

Please take a closer look and stop re-adding this material. They made those opinions months before the film was even released. Estnot (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• After comparing you with User:MangoTareeface9, it is clear that you two are the same person, following the same pattern on the same articles, including the copious amounts of logged-out editing. That is disruptive enough in its own right--but the socking is completely unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies You accused me of socking on this forum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1054091209

I like a checkdisk investigation from yourself to Review the other editors on that PARTUCULAR forum thread and see if any of them is actually my sock. None of them are even me and am sure a smart guy like you most definitely knows that. Perhaps it was just a mistake tho it is super weird my first comment is still showing but only my replies to another editor is what you completely censored. Seems like me adding in FACTS that Debt Trap Diplomacy is a myth, triggered you. Sorry but that is just facts. 

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/

I hope my recent "copius" anonymous off account edits adding in Anerican war crimes recently, hasn't made you develop a grudge against me (esp when you are an American) because that would be super unprofessional and petty. And accusing me of socking on that thread when I definitely did not sock at all on that thread, is outright just Admin abuse. It is not Admin rights to slander others wrongfully and remove their replies.

There is not even a second person in this forum supporting me so your accusations that I committed sockpupptry there is beyond absurd. There is a total of 5 editors there including me. You claim one of the one of the other editors is my sock. Okay, which one? You accuse me of disruptive editing yet you seem to be blind to your own blatant vandalism of other peoples' edit to get your way. Slandering me and reverting my edits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1054091209

Want you to know I reported you to Arbitration for abusing your role. I requested a checkdisk investigation (from another Admin) to Review the other editors and see if any of the other editors on that forum is actually my sock. None of them are even me and you most definitely know that. You have no right to call me as a sock when I never socked there. Fair is fair. If there is no sockpuppetry in that forum, you can't just accuse of socking in that TALK section. There is no excuses for that slander.

Nvtuil (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies You proved you're precisely the person who would talk to me on this page for a long while and yet fail to even mention that my block wasn't 1 week but indefinitely.. So I get a nasty surprise. Except I am not even surprised. From the very moment I saw you, I already knew this was unfair treatment and you exaggerated my edits.

If that's not true at all then it should be every easy to show me proof of recent extreme disruption. Show me 3 edits I have done in the past 3 months that was infactual or vandalism or disruptive. I really don't think you can find any edits that is possibly deemed serious enough to get me blocked at all. And am asking you still. Don't ignore.

This is probably the only and last account and opportunity you can block me.. I won't let you get the same chance. As long as I have a good source and solid info. Who can realistically stop me to add that info in? Nobody can. The worst thing that will happen is I attract crazies who troll my Talk page. Which unfortunately happens way too frequently. But as Long as the info i add in is solid and factual, I have nothing to feel bad about and frankly don't believe that I done any disruptive editing. The whole thing felt off - Mango has already been inactive for months yet you suddenly just bring this up now? None of my recent edits can warrant a block and you're digging up old gray area history.

Reality is -> Nobody in the entire Wikipedia community can ever stop me as long as my edits are factual and well sourced. I never once needed any sock to do that. And full disclosure. The link below is a magazine that has absolutely zero mention on Wikipedia. I was in the middle of adding the info in right before you blocked me. If we ever meet again, you won't recognize my new account but one of my edits would be to reference the information below. And even if you absolutely hate my edits, you can do absolutely nothing to punish my edits as I never needed a sock to add it in. All I ever needed was a solid information backed by a good source.

https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china

Adiós. Nvtuil (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

.......

Despite what the original template says, your block was changed a few minutes later to indefinite by user:Drmies. Meters (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Meters, all the bullshit about "petty" and "American" and "nasty" and "you have a grudge" the threats of continued socking with new accounts, it's all just really sad. I'm going to revoke talk page access since this user just doesn't seem to be competent enough to be helpful in a collaborative environment. Yeah, Nvtuil, it's cause I'm American (I'm not) that I blocked you for violating our policy on alternate accounts and logged-out editing. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)