User talk:YuelinLee1959

😅

Have you mind Sun Wukong Ispird by chines novel and chines novel inspird by Chinese travel and you read also mahakapi jataka monkey king also mention in maha Kapil jatak to please don't try to change again 😇 Ketanwasnik 098 (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me where the original novel mentions the Mahakapi Jataka, which chapter, and write down the original text. If the original novel really mentions the Mahakapi Jataka, you should be able to point out the chapter and provide the exact text, right? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say you've seen in some articles that the original novel mentions the Mahakapi Jataka. Whether it's Journey to the West or the Mahakapi Jataka, these books have been passed down, and you should be able to see the original text. If it does mention it, at least you should be able to cite which chapter it's mentioned in and what the exact original sentence is. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source replacement

Kindly stop replacing an on point academic source with a less reliable one. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hobson, John M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Cambridge University Press, p. 103. This one is from Cambridge University Press. Should be a reliable source

Graff，David A. Medieval Chinese Warfare, London Routledge, also a reliable source YuelinLee1959 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no problem, I will use these sources to edit YuelinLee1959 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point (after having been reverted) you should be discussing potential changes on the article's talk page rather than repeatedly making the same edit. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Myth: Wukong and Game Science. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.

You have made several disruptive edits on these articles. Despite getting reverted on your edits by multiple users, you have shown a repeated pattern to add your edits in again and again without consensus. --Cold Season (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only disputed edit is regarding Game Science. I don't revert any your edition related to Black Myth: Wukong now. For example, in your edit about Kang Jinlong, after you explained that "Kangjinlong" is the more standard name, I made no further changes and followed your edit completely. I simply changed "Kangjinlong" to "Kang Jin Loong," which is essentially the same term. In fact, "Loong" is the more standard spelling, and even on the Wikipedia page, it is written as "Loong."

So, the only disagreement is about Game Science. We have had no disputes regarding Black Myth: Wukong. As for Game Science, everything I wrote is merely a translation of the source YuelinLee1959 (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Noticeboard Incident Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:YuelinLee1959 - WP:NOTHERE. The discussion is about the topic Game Science. Thank you. Snakester95 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some private advice

Regarding your other question at the AN/I thread I do believe that Snakester95 jumped the gun going there when they did. However, as a friendly word of advice, I'd suggest you go and do some editing somewhere that isn't culture-war adjacent video game articles. The quality of citations for Game Science, Sweet Baby and other causes celebre of the online right are garbage even at the top and only go down from there. Telling editors they need to look at some youtuber's bad translation of Chinese or a Redditor's conspiracy theory is a waste of their time. Experienced editors are likely to start suggesting you are not really interested in the project of building an encyclopedia. I'd gently suggest you visit WP:PUMP and do some reading on participation in Wikipedia including basic policies such as WP:RS instead of keeping an AN/I thread unnecessarily alive.

I'll give you an apropos example: this is not a reliable source. [1] - to understand why please review this policy: WP:SPS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. There are a few questions I would like to clarify. First, do you think I should continue participating in discussions related to Game Science? Second, I'm not sure what qualifies as a reliable source. I have added some Chinese media, such as Sina, to discuss issues related to IGN's coverage. Are these media outlets considered reliable sources? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sina uses user-generated content and, as such, is not generally a reliable source. This is not because it is in Chinese. This is because it is a blog host and people can just... make a blog there... with no editorial oversight. My suggestion that you walk away from gaming articles for a time and learn the ropes is not dissimilar to the advice I often give new users when their passion for a topic outsteps their understanding of Wikipedia's norms. It's best to learn how to edit somewhere that you aren't getting into fights. However I have no power to force you to do anything. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like your suggestion is implying that I should leave Wikipedia and not be active anymore? From my perspective, editing content related to games is no different from editing topics on history, science, or politics.If editing gaming-related content is not allowed, then it seems that editing topics like history, science, and politics would also not be allowed. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not, I'm suggesting you find somewhere to edit productively where you aren't getting into fights. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]