User talk:Storm598

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Halfadaniel (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Labor Party (Taiwan), you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit is not vandalism. Because the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China. Therefore, the Chinese nationalist party should be marked as the "Republic of China" and the Taiwanese nationalist party as "Taiwan".--Storm598 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at People First Party (Taiwan). Firestar464 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It's ridiculous and absurd. The TPP and KMT documents against Taiwan's independence also describe the political infobox as "Politics of the Republic of China," not as "Politics of Taiwan." So, can I change the "Politics of the Republic of China" section of the KMT and TPP documents to "Politics of Taiwan"? I was only trying to unify the standards because the standards themselves were jagged in the first place.--Storm598 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you checked the talk page but following more research I happen to agree with your assessments, though I think an edit note might go a long way: a lot of people see Taiwan get replaced by something with China and panic (Province of PRC, etc.). Let me know what I can do to help/if you want to discuss further on standardization of Taiwan politics related articles; if we're doing one, we might as well do them all. Halfadaniel (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right-wing populism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People Power Party. 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) 06:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

May I ask why you removed all categories from a bunch of political parties and decided to nest those categories inside some... other shell category? This does not seem to be standard practice but maybe I'm wrong. DrIdiot (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See, for example, the categories for Democratic_Party_(United_States) DrIdiot (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I moved because I thought the categories were overlapping, was it my fault?--Storm598 (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing to me too, but I think what has been done is that "DPP article" now has its own category (the "DPP category"), and the DPP category is inside a bunch of other categories. However, this isn't transitive -- i.e. the previous other categories that the DPP article belonged to no longer show up on the article page. I think it's best if those categories remain so readers can click on them directly (and this seems to be the practice elsewhere, e.g. on the Democratic Party of USA page, which is pretty well-trafficked so I'd trust it as a standard). If you agree, would you mind changing back other instances where you've done this? DrIdiot (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion.--Storm598 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Storm598, I noticed that in some of your recent edits, you changed some of the English variants in some articles (specifically changing "center" to "centre"). While there's nothing wrong with such edits, they're also usually considered unnecessary (see MOS:RETAIN). You can leave your edits in place, but I just thought I should let you know. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tuesday Group

added links pointing to New Republic and The Hill

Blue Dog Coalition

added a link pointing to The Hill

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuesday Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Justice Party (South Korea), you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've never done disruptive editing. Please participate in the Talk first and decide.--Storm598 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tuesday Group; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Aasim (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Aasim (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Daiichi1 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia must remain neutral. However, 'Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment' classification in documents related to Korea is being applied to the extent that it is against NPOV. However, in documents related to Japan, 'Category:Anti-Korean Sentiment' applies only to very few documents. If you look at the documents that were previously classified as Category: Anti-Japanese Sentiment, I think they are often from no source or objective.--Storm598 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Then add the 'category:Anti-korean' sentiment to articles you think it belongs to instead of removing the 'Anti-Japanese sentiment' category from articles it belongs on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiichi1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you removing this category from articles for which it is obviously appropriate? I see that many of your edits doing this have been reverted. When you look at your contributions page and see edit after edit has been reverted by other editors, you should be taking in the message that your editing is not improving Wikipedia.

The same goes for your edits to political parties. They are in large part not supported by the articles. ALL CATEGORIES MUST BE SUPPORTED BY INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE. I will be reverting many of these as well.

Your talk page does not exactly show a lot of productive editing in the 3 months you've been here, exactly the opposite I would suggest that you re-evaluate your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Compared to documents classified as "Category: Anti-Korean Sentiment in Japan", there are many documents that seem to be classified unfairly. And it was classified as "Category:Anti-Korean Sentiment in Japan," which is not one or two documents deleted by Japanese wiki users. However, why is "Category: Anti-Japanese Sentiment in Korea" being overissued only in documents related to Korea? For example, is there any objective reason to call it Anti-Japanese just because Koreans drew a movie that resisted the Japanese Empire during the colonial period?--Storm598 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And the standard of 'productive editing' itself is unclear. I've just focused on correcting misinformation or inappropriate editing within Wikipedia.--Storm598 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a movie which shows Korean struggles to throw off their Japanese rulers is an instance of "Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea," most definitely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No. That's ridiculous. Mahatma Gandhi resisted the British, so is it Anti-British sentimental in India?--Storm598 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You're trying to say that Gandhi's campaign for the liberation of India from British rule was NOT an example of anti-British sentiment? That's an utterly ridiculous position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think about it backwards, is it racism that resists imperialism? Typically, the 'anti-○○○ sentimental' category is attached to racists, with racism in the parent category. (Imperialism here refers to imperialism in the classical sense.)--Storm598 (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is both sociological AND political - the category doesn't specify whether "Japanese" in "Anti-Japanese sentiment" is referring to the nation of Japan or the Japanese ethnicity, so we have to take it as being both, which is especially appropriate given the concerns among the Japanese to keep their society as mono-ethnic as possible. In any case your Gandhi comparison falls down, because "British" is not an ethnicity, it's a nationality encompassing English people, Scots people, Welsh people and Irish people, as well as many other ethnicities, so the "Anti-XXXX sentiment" categories are clearly NOT about entnicity alone, as you're claiming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Productive editing" means editing in such a way that Wikipedia is improved. I -- and apparently many other editors -- have not found your edits to have been improvements. I am currently engaged in revertiing those in subject areas I know something about, but there remains many others, and I have it in mind to post on WP:AN a request for other editors to explore your edits in other areas and revert those which are not improvements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what you wrote above, the placement of the above category on appropriate articles is not an instance of violating NPOV. It seems, rather, that you are editing from a personal PoV, which explains why a multitude of other editors have reverted so many of your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 9 Mar[h 2021 (UTC)

Pleas take note of a comment on that discussion which says that "They [meaning you] aren't under any sanction, but they are under discussion at a admin noticeboard so retiring this account and starting a new one would not be permitted under WP:CLEANSTART." What that means is that you cannot "retire" and open a new account. If you wish to keep editing, you need to use this account. If it is discovered that you went ahead and made a new account anyway, it's likely that you would be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not retiring. I will continue to use this account.--Storm598 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

...therefore your edits adding the "proto-feminist" category to multiple articles are being rolled back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Two weeks after saying you were imposing a 3 month block on yourself, you edited again. Are you incapable of doing what you said you would do? Should I nominate you for a formal three month block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You are not editing American political documents. What's the problem? If you're so unhappy, I won't edit it for three months.--Storm598 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's what you already promised to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Your three months is NOT up. In any case I have reverted your changes to Republican Governance Group, as you have -- once again -- shown that you do not understand American politics. By the classical definition, almost ALL American politicians are "liberals", however by the AMERICAN definition, there are NO liberals in the modern Republican party, the range of views runs from moderate to deeply conservative.
  Please stop tinkering with American political articles as you have repeatedly shown that you do not grasp its fundamental concepts, and the Korean blog you rely on for information is misinforming you. If you continue, I will once again have to bring your behavior up on the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You're the one who wrote the POV description on the Blue Dog Coalition page, changing what was written as "center left to center right" to "center to center-right with right-wing factions". And that description was returned by others. You are maliciously accusing me. I fully understand American politics. It's you who understand American politics 'biased'.--Storm598 (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And you talk about Korean blog, and I have never quoted Korean blog in English Wikipedia. You've been maliciously criticizing me for a long time for referring to Namuwiki as a reference case, not as a source.--Storm598 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A user named Beyond My Ken reiterates the POV view. However, You can threatening to post it on the Administrators' noticeboard, saying that I do not understand American politics. Of course, there may be some parts of the American political document that I do not understand. However, there is no source for the Republican Governance Group to regard as a typical conservative organization.--Storm598 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It is also a very European political standard that there is no liberal in the Republican Party in modern America. Right now, the Democratic Party of Korea's social and cultural policy is much more social conservative than the moderate in the U.S. Republican Party. What is clear is that the Republican Governance Group is clearly referred to as "moderate" or "liberal" in reliable sources. --Storm598 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:American conservative liberals has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Liberalism in the Republican Party (United States) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:North American conservative liberals indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Better be careful. If you disagree with Acroterion then Bradv might block you then run away when you ask them to justify it. Just ignore them, it is unproductive to do otherwise. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Especially culturally, Barack Obama has been active in pro-immigration, pro-LGBT and autistic rights issues.

There is nothing liberal or "left" about a politician that is pro-immigration, pro-LGBT, or pro-autistic rights in the US. This is a common misperception about American politics. While it is true that some of these ideas might have been confined to the left many years ago, it no longer has any bearing on the left-right dynamic. The US is a nation of immigrants based on pioneers who were immigrants themselves. The extreme notion that someone can be against immigration and yet still call themselves an American is a misnomer. Again, you are citing extremist, minority, religious positions as some kind of metric for determining who is left or right. Today in the US, one can be pro-LGBT and still be a right-wing conservative. Same for autistic rights. If a politician declares they are against immigration in the US, then they are anti-American. If they say they are anti-LGBT and anti-autistic rights, then they are against democracy and human rights and equal treatment under the law. None of this has to do with being left or right. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, The US is a nation of immigrants based on pioneers who were immigrants themselves. The extreme notion that someone can be against immigration and yet still call themselves an American is a misnomer. & If a politician declares they are against immigration in the US, then they are anti-American. You keep talking crazy talk while providing no evidence or sources. Please stop. Please. PackMecEng (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, could you stop with the personal attacks and keep your extremist, cultist beliefs to yourself? Thank you in advance. My comments are not addressed to you, unless this is your alternate account? Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, Now I am an extremist and a cultist? Wow and you kiss your mother with that mouth! PackMecEng (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Last time: unless this is your alternate account, stop following me around and interfering with things you don't have any knowledge about. I'm sure there's a Donald Trump-related article that needs whitewashing. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not considered a center-right in the American political context. Moderate social liberals like Obama are considered center-right in very few areas, including northern Europe and France. In South Korea, not only the far right but also the center-right are extremely opposed to homosexuality itself. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is an far-right in the political context of the United States, but has not openly opposed homosexuality.--Storm598 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In the US, opposition to homosexuality arises from the Christian evangelical movement, a religious policy position that the right has adopted for votes, not because they are ideologically aligned with it due to the right side of the spectrum. In fact their political ideology supports limited government intervention and more personal freedom for individuals, indicating support for sexual preference. Do you understand now why this is not a political position? In other words, one can be on the right and support homosexuality. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, Bro. Look at the section right above this one. I was here first, wtf are you talking about following you around!? Also quit with the childish personal attacks. I am embarrassed for you at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You are seriously confused. This discussion section has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, Barack Obama is more of a New Democrat Coalition. The NDC is a center-left organization. Also, in conservative countries such as East Asia, the rights of immigrants, LGBT, and autistic people are not fully accepted. The Democratic Party of the United States belongs to the left-wing Progressive Alliance.--Storm598 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Which center-left policies did Obama personally succeed in passing during his administration? Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage was legalized by the Liberal Supreme Court in 2015. On the other hand, Merkel in Germany opposed same-sex marriage. The world is still full of social conservative dung and absurdity. Obama also expanded overtime pay recipients and introduced paid sick leave. Since the 1980s, the company has tried to balance labor-management relations, which have been apparently driven by users. South Korea's anti-U.S. left-wing journalist Hankyoreh also praised Obama's labor reform as a policy for 99 percent, criticizing his South Korea's labor oppression and pro-business-oriented political forces. # --Storm598 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you briefly describe what kind of labor reforms Obama implemented that fall under this center-left classification? Or at the very least, what changes did Obama make? Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I just want to point out that you said above that same-sex marriage was legalized by a "liberal" Supreme Court, when in fact the court was split down the middle at the time, and the majority opinion was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a right-leaning libertarian/conservative. Again, you are repeating this black and white, Fox News-like, religiously-motivated meme that anyone who supports LGBT is somewhow left of center. This isn't true. The left-right political spectrum changes over time, with some issues going from left to right and others going from right to left. The fact that minority groups are given the same rights as majority groups under the law is a principle that both the left and the right uphold when it is convenient for them to do so. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

	Rainbows after rain
	I haven't really followed the discussion on ANI, but it sounds like you're having a rough year. A break can be a good thing. Be good to yourself and do what you need to for your peace of mind. Come back refreshed! Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for saying that.--Storm598 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Please take care of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This message is to inform you that the community has come to a consensus to ban you from all topics related to American politics, all eras, broadly construed. You are not to participate in or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Any violation of this ban can result in a block without any further warning, and such violations can be reverted by any user. This ban will remain in effect until such a time as the community comes to a consensus to modify or remove it.

The complete discussion can be found here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not tag edits which add or remove categories as minor. This is one of the explicit situations mentioned at WP:MINOR. I would also strongly encourage the use of WP:Edit summaries. Best, CMD (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll do that from now on. Thank you for the information.--Storm598 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)