User talk:Zujine

Chinese universities

The idea that we should treat Chinese academics as less reliable than American academics is corrosive to WP:ACADEMICBIAS and is, frankly, a rather pernicious violation of WP:NPOV. Please do not make such claims in article-space in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have started a conversation about this matter on the talk page of the article. —Zujine|talk 20:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wittenberg, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Historia von D. Johann Fausten was added. 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) 17:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

fixed. thank you. —Zujine|talk 01:51, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

October 2026

I initially let your remarks slide but your latest backhanded comment crossed a line. I am asking you to apologize as this conduct should not continue.

You had pointed out that I mislabeled Britannica as secondary rather than tertiary. I made that mistake once unintentionally and corrected it promptly. After your loaded initial reply to me, I acknowledged that Brittanica is indeed tertiary. It was just an ordinary error, not even something I was disputing. But you implied it was a repeated failure/willful ignorance from me to not acknowledge Britannica's status as a tertiary.

But using the (Find) search function, I found the word "tertiary" had only been mentioned once in that thread where I proposed RFC. And also once across the earlier threads. On neither occasion, did I disagree or argued against that characterisation. Also nobody was saying I had mislabeled Britannica as not tertiary. It is therefore unfair to imply that I repeatedly refused to acknowledge Brittanica as tertiary. So please don't exaggerate as if people has to repeatedly tell me over and over again to label Brittanica as tertiary when I corrected the mistake and already moved on.

Characterising an ordinary mistake as deliberate is unnecessary and amounts to casting aspersions. If you have substantive objections or suggestions, raise it politely.

Also when it comes to Hurley, if he is doing a secondary analysis of a primary source then it's not a mere opinion. I believe my characterisation (secondary interpretation) is defensible and explained context , but terminology isn't even remotely the central issue. That's why I dropped all references to "secondary" in RFC question to avoid derailing discussion even tho I believe my reasoning is sound.

Despite that effort to keep the discussion focused on actual dispute, you continued to made further backhanded remarks that is not a suggestion but just casting attacks on character. That is unacceptable.

Disagreement over sourcing and due weight is entirely legitimate but personal remarks that impugn another editor's intentions are not. I already offered RFC option as a final measure to settle through community consensus. But if you continue making personal remarks and casting aspersions, as you did today, I will raise the conduct issue at the appropriate administrators noticeboard and seek administrative intervention. I expect further discussion to remain civil and focused on content and policy rather than personal insinuations. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Helen Macdonald (writer)

A new page ヘレン・マクドナルド on the Japanese Wikipedia has been linked to the page Helen Macdonald (writer), which you created, via Wikidata (Q18921880). NervousBot (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.