User talk:SongRuyi: Difference between revisions

SongRuyi, I wanted to remind you that Wikipedia places great importance on [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and [[WP:NPA|not attacking]] other editors. Calling fellow editors {{tq|no brain}}s in {{Diff2|1303465378|this edit summary}} is discourteous, and {{Diff2|1303473342|veiled accusations}} against me of an {{tq|anti-China bias}} gets close to the line of a personal attack. I’d be grateful if you would stick to dispassionate discussion of the content. And just for the record, I am anti-poor sourcing, anti-non notable subjects, and anti-shoddily written articles, but certainly not anti-China. Cheers, [[User:SunloungerFrog|SunloungerFrog]] ([[User talk:SunloungerFrog|talk]]) 22:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

SongRuyi, I wanted to remind you that Wikipedia places great importance on [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and [[WP:NPA|not attacking]] other editors. Calling fellow editors {{tq|no brain}}s in {{Diff2|1303465378|this edit summary}} is discourteous, and {{Diff2|1303473342|veiled accusations}} against me of an {{tq|anti-China bias}} gets close to the line of a personal attack. I’d be grateful if you would stick to dispassionate discussion of the content. And just for the record, I am anti-poor sourcing, anti-non notable subjects, and anti-shoddily written articles, but certainly not anti-China. Cheers, [[User:SunloungerFrog|SunloungerFrog]] ([[User talk:SunloungerFrog|talk]]) 22:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

:What the hell is wrong with you? I’m an educated person who engages in good faith. I don’t go around accusing people without reason, and I certainly don’t target individuals in discussions. Yet here you are, dragging me into something I never directed at you. You referred to my comment in the AfD discussion that said: {{tq|I hope there is no anti-China bias involved—if there is, it would be nearly impossible for me to defend them fairly.}} How exactly is that about you? I didn’t name anyone, didn’t suggest any editor was biased, and used careful, conditional language like “hope” and “if there is.” That is clearly a general statement expressing concern about fairness in the discussion—nothing more.

:Are you so insecure that you see yourself in every single comment that doesn’t praise your view? Sorry, but that’s not my problem. I stand by what I said. It was a reasonable point to raise in the context of that deletion discussion, and I worded it respectfully and cautiously. If you feel personally attacked by that, maybe reflect on why—because I never mentioned you, and I never intended to.

:I’ve got better things to do than get into pointless drama with editors who twist words and play victim every time they’re not the center of agreement. I spend my time doing real work—researching, improving articles, and contributing solid edits to the China-related project. I’m not here to stir conflict or throw shade at other contributors just because I disagree with them. I have no patience for toxic behavior or petty arguments. You deliberately misquoted my edit summary by changing “no brain” to “no brains” as if I wrote something worse than I did. That’s not a mistake—that’s an intentional move to paint me in a bad light and escalate a situation that didn’t even involve you. It’s petty, it’s misleading, and it says a lot more about your approach to editing than mine.

:Let me be very clear: I don’t have time for this nonsense. If you want to spend your time playing watchdog and crying foul over imagined insults, go right ahead—but leave me out of it. Check my contributions. Look at my edit history. You’ll see consistent, good-faith work focused on research, facts, and article quality. I don’t waste my time picking fights or attacking people. I came here to contribute—not to babysit thin-skinned editors who go out of their way to start problems.

:So next time, before you accuse someone of attacking you, read more carefully and maybe ask yourself whether your reaction is really about what was said—or about your own need to feel offended. You’re not the center of the universe, and not every sentence is about you. Grow up. [[User:SongRuyi|SongRuyi]] ([[User talk:SongRuyi#top|talk]]) 07:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi SongRuyi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marshal Tianpeng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy. 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) 07:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Xiaoziye. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
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 the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SongRuyi. I came across Jeongipumsong during the New Pages Patrol process. This tree is notable and the topic is very interesting, but unfortunately it seems that the sources cited for at least two paragraphs do not support the content of the article. I have tagged these as “failed verification”. Could you please find and cite sources that support the content of these paragraphs? Toadspike [Talk] 20:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike This is a basic fact, and most of the references in the article already support it. Even a single reliable reference is enough to justify the creation of the article, but I have added many references as backup. You can check at least one of the references currently cited, and you’ll see that the sources commonly mention the tree’s height and the typhoon that destroyed the trees. Nevertheless, I have re-added the reference to support these claims. To verify, you can use Google Machine Translate to translate the Korean text. SongRuyi (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding references that support the information in those paragraphs. The issues seem to be addressed. In future, you should only place citations after text they verify, not after unrelated text.

Even a single reliable reference is enough to justify the creation of the article – This is false. Article creation is justified if the topic is notable, which almost always requires multiple sources. Again, Jeongipumsong is notable, but only because there are many source discussing it in detail. Toadspike [Talk] 10:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. What I meant was that a single source is enough to cover the facts in the article—not to establish notability. I’m already familiar with WP:ONESOURCE, and I understand that my article does not have a notability issue. Everything is clear now after you pointed that out. SongRuyi (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SongRuyi Thank you for improving the Princess Changde article. I’ve noticed that there are currently few active members in the field of Chinese history, and many articles are lacking in quality regarding content, sources, and grammar. Min968 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SongRuyi, I wanted to remind you that Wikipedia places great importance on civility and not attacking other editors. Calling fellow editors no brains in this edit summary is discourteous, and veiled accusations against me of an anti-China bias gets close to the line of a personal attack. I’d be grateful if you would stick to dispassionate discussion of the content. And just for the record, I am anti-poor sourcing, anti-non notable subjects, and anti-shoddily written articles, but certainly not anti-China. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with you? I’m an educated person who engages in good faith. I don’t go around accusing people without reason, and I certainly don’t target individuals in discussions. Yet here you are, dragging me into something I never directed at you. You referred to my comment in the AfD discussion that said: I hope there is no anti-China bias involved—if there is, it would be nearly impossible for me to defend them fairly. How exactly is that about you? I didn’t name anyone, didn’t suggest any editor was biased, and used careful, conditional language like “hope” and “if there is.” That is clearly a general statement expressing concern about fairness in the discussion—nothing more.

Are you so insecure that you see yourself in every single comment that doesn’t praise your view? Sorry, but that’s not my problem. I stand by what I said. It was a reasonable point to raise in the context of that deletion discussion, and I worded it respectfully and cautiously. If you feel personally attacked by that, maybe reflect on why—because I never mentioned you, and I never intended to.

I’ve got better things to do than get into pointless drama with editors who twist words and play victim every time they’re not the center of agreement. I spend my time doing real work—researching, improving articles, and contributing solid edits to the China-related project. I’m not here to stir conflict or throw shade at other contributors just because I disagree with them. I have no patience for toxic behavior or petty arguments. You deliberately misquoted my edit summary by changing “no brain” to “no brains” as if I wrote something worse than I did. That’s not a mistake—that’s an intentional move to paint me in a bad light and escalate a situation that didn’t even involve you. It’s petty, it’s misleading, and it says a lot more about your approach to editing than mine.

Let me be very clear: I don’t have time for this nonsense. If you want to spend your time playing watchdog and crying foul over imagined insults, go right ahead—but leave me out of it. Check my contributions. Look at my edit history. You’ll see consistent, good-faith work focused on research, facts, and article quality. I don’t waste my time picking fights or attacking people. I came here to contribute—not to babysit thin-skinned editors who go out of their way to start problems.

So next time, before you accuse someone of attacking you, read more carefully and maybe ask yourself whether your reaction is really about what was said—or about your own need to feel offended. You’re not the center of the universe, and not every sentence is about you. Grow up. SongRuyi (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]