User talk:Whiff of greatness

Welcome

Greetings, Whiff of greatness, and welcome to Wikipedia's deletion process! Thank you for your contributions. As a newcomer, it may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the pages describing the articles for deletion process, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion. Remember that deletion debates are not votes, and reasons matter, especially reasons relating to the central content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not, and to the consensual community guidelines for biographies, corporations, music, and fiction. Also remember that deletion is not always the answer to a bad article. Feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you have any questions. Again, welcome!  Seagull123  Φ  12:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Whiff of greatness, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Whiff of greatness! 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 Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

wiki-break from otto warmbier

Whiff, I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. I believe you misunderstand the subject of this article and I suggest you "take it slow" for a while and listen to the editors Jack and 92.40.248.13 who seem to have a better grasp here. Here is the press conference, I highly suggest you watch the Q&A portion of the video. 67.233.35.234 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote the same thing on the article's talk page two days earlier. What's going on? You were so disappointed that you didn't get a reply to your banal, empty, filibustering post that you repost here? If you must have a reply here it is: If you really have no idea what I am talking about, you may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Whiff of greatness (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia. I like to see it function smoothly and for editors to see eye-to-eye. Otto's life ended tragically but it could have been avoided if he hadn't fooled around with the fatalistic propaganda poster. The Q & A of the press conference (combined with the fact he willfully sought a trip to N.K.) proves far more than what any news story or press coverage he has received. I assume you may believe in his innocence, so I'll respect your wishes. 67.233.35.234 (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think North Korea deserves the benefit of the doubt? The history of North Korean prisoner confessions suggests it is misplaced. At the end of Nineteen Eighty Four, Winston Smith is eager to confess to every horrible deed he can think of: "And I deliberately contracted syphillus in order to infect my wife and family." That's the Stalinist tradition where Warmbier's confession came from. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

North Korea is run by an evil regime that abuses human rights and deserves no benefit of the doubt. To be brutally honest, Otto Warmbier was 21 years old and that's an age where things get dicey. Otto was brave, courageous, and eschewed social norms—specifically the idea not to travel to North Korea. He planned his trip, knew the country was a crazy dictatorship, and threw caution to the wind. There's an excellent video about a blondeperson who swims with great white sharks that may help bridge your insights into these deleterious personalities. You can see it also in the press conference Q&A how he revels in front of the cameras. 67.233.35.234 (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "listen to Jack" is a great idea. How is he an authority on North Korean cases? Seems like your typical over active to the point of obsessive(on communism of all things), white male Wikipedia editor who has no actual experience living in a country dealing with propaganda. Says he's Australian. Just noticed this talk page and just saying. Not one person here is above the other. We are all anonymous. Just because someone has too much time on their hands doesn't make them an authority on any topic. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:75D1:2704:9276:D260 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There are already many things problematic with Wikipedia. A gender bias of mostly white male editors, lack of authority and general quality and reliability. The most active editors rarely actually produce the bulk of the content anyway. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:75D1:2704:9276:D260 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Pretenders

Didn't I? I did made a present claim of Yuan family according to books, and it would be more proper to add the throne pretenders/head of imperial clans throughout the Chinese history, so the topic is more complete, not just with Qing dynasty. - George6VI (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not the format of any of the other articles on the template. You must know this since you removed the article from the historical monarchies template. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem of the Chinese case is that the news, which had no idea how the succession of Chinese empire went, "guessing" that there should be a Chinese pretender. Jin himself at most claimed himself as the head of the family, not pretenders. People editing this article should know the culture and history differences, not rejecting the facts given from local history books. - George6VI (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not the way its supposed to work on Wikipedia. We follow the WP:reliable sources with WP:no original research. Please familiarize yourself with these concepts before editing further. If Jin "at most claimed himself as the head of the family," why do you keep claiming he is pretender to Manchukuo? These issues exist with all the pretender articles, none of this is unique to China. Whiff of greatness (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not keeping claiming it. I had said that but not in the article. In the article, I stated him as the head of the house, and as to reliable sources, all those historical records and books are, and what I did is just translate them into English. - George6VI (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So is this RM your proposal or not? Whiff of greatness (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I did - but if there's no consensus of the discussion in a week, the case will be closed. - George6VI (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle over Zurich

"I hope you're pulling my leg here.": Diff over a number of edits, last edit summary "Changing spelling of Battle of Zürich to Battle of Zurich in line with article (but not Zürich in general, as the spelling of the city was decided by a series of RMs in 2013 and there is no reason to revisit)".

-- PBS (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)