Talk:Telling China's stories well

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Additional context

TinaLees-Jones, you probably need some additional context around "strategies to initiate dialogue" to logically connect it with the topic at hand. - Amigao (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A compelling justification must exist for the rapid deletion of another's contributions for you. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TinaLees-Jones, see WP:ONUS. There needs to be a logical connection between the paragraph in question and the topic at hand. Otherwise, it's just WP:COAT. - Amigao (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, the malicious deleting of another individual's content throughout the editing process is unequivocally an unfriendly conduct, and even soliciting administrators to observe does not substantiate your actions. Secondly, the coherence of paragraphs necessitates the continual incorporation of facts, rather than the elimination of another's text. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's add some additional context to logically connect the paragraph in question with the topic at hand. That's all I'm asking. - Amigao (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you probably should WP:AGF here. Your contributions here are useful, but the logical cogency in this case just needs a bit of work. - Amigao (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cease the pretense that everyone is uninformed; you are aware of your own reputation and undoubtedly relish the advantages it confers. Let us employ the rules to facilitate significant conflicts and interactions. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TinaLees-Jones, you might want to also check out WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At what hour do you conclude your work there? If your employer fails to compensate you for overtime, I can wait until you arrive at work to discuss this article with you. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TinaLees-Jones A compelling justification must exist for the rapid deletion of another's contributions for you. I would consider falsification of direct quotations to be a very compelling justification, yes. —C.Fred (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

An anti-Chinese user User:Amigao has authored this entry following a record-setting 10 rounds of malicious removals within the past hour. Let us continue observing to determine the extent of this record's conclusion.TinaLees-Jones (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]