User talk:Nationalist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:29, 28 January 2007

Your Republic of China edits

You are making significant edits to a wide number of articles and it is unclear what the point of this is. If the map that you keep removing at e.g., [1] is not right then please provide a valid map instead. The article clearly states that "Today the Republic of China is often known as "Chinese Taipei" or "Taiwan" and the Map clearly states that it is refering to Taiwan and so I do not see the logic of removing a map that the article agrees is valid. Wikipedia is not about what is true but what is verifiable. I guess I could edit the map and "photoshop" Taiwan and replace that with "Republic Of China" by why bother if this is already clear. Ttiotsw 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to WP:cleanup the article, to make it more understandable for the public. Tonytypoon 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are getting confusing. The vast majority of English readers and writers do not refers to Taiwan as RoC or RoC on Taiwan. They might be appropriate within specific context. However, most people refer to the RoC as Taiwan. It is used in all English newspaper articles and references. People don't refer to the UK or Britain as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most people refer to China as China and not as the People's Republic of China. Likewise for North Korea, etc. More importantly, using RoC instead of Taiwan will confuse most people because the word "China" is most often used to mean the PRoC. There is no reason for these mass edits. --Comatose51 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop changing Taiwan into Taiwan,ROC, or ROC? ROC is known as Taiwan. Stop saying Taiwan isn't a country.--Jerrypp772000 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits reflect unenforceable extraterritorial claims

I feel uncomfortable that Wikipedia is being edited across a number of articles to remove the word Taiwan whenever the sequence Republic of China or ROC is used. In places it is gramatically edited to say "ROC on Taiwan" which makes poor or little sense in English. This kind of edit has also damaged intra-article content links. The aim of your edits is to reflect the now-obsolete extraterritorial constitutional claims of the Republic of China in Wikipedia. These claims are embodied in your edit summary of [2] or [3] e.g. you claim that "This article isn't just about the ROC on Taiwan, but also the ROC on Mainland China. ROC is not equal to Taiwan, so that map is misleading. ROC's territory includes all of Mainland China, Mongolia,etc". This is nonsense as the Republic of China is not even a recognised country by many. The ROC article reflects current scope of the country not anachronistic claims. The Foreign_relations_of_Mongolia article shows the nonsense of the ROC extra-territorial claims as Mongolia is a UN, WHO, ITU etc etc member. Wikipedia should reflect what is in fact the reality of modern politics not wishful thinking. For edits to ROC to be made to claim Mongolia is non-Neutral and certainly does not reflect modern political reality. I would suggest that you show more willing to negotiate other than simply continuously reverting peoples edits with the same summary and you can do this by adding a map to the Republic of China article which accurately reflects the territorial extent. Ttiotsw 08:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Taiwan

I have again replaced the map of Taiwan (image) that you deleted from Republic of China. I am NOT arguing with you regarding ROC's claims to all of China - that is, as you say, a fact. But, in turn, I ask that you acknowledge the FACT that ROC is currently PHYSICALLY located on Taiwan, and the FACT that such a map IS useful to readers.

I also understand that you may feel that the caption of the map is wrong. If so, please CHANGE THE CAPTION. The caption CAN be edited by you. Please do NOT remove the entire map if you disagree with the caption. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 14:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Anyway, please resond on my user-talk page. Thanks. --Green-Dragon 06:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Chiling article

The Lin Chiling article does not conform to Wikipedia standards and requires cleanup. A simple listing of "facts" is not a Wikipedia article. DO NOT REMOVE THE TEMPLATE AGAIN. If you refuse to conform to the rules of Wikipedia, I will have to report your actions as vandalism. If you disagree with the edits, please discuss in the talk page for the article, which is linked to by the template. I added the citation tag because we disagree on some "facts". If you disagree, please cite creditable sources. Comatose51 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply...

Thanxs for the message. It's controversial to label "Taiwan" as a province. It's administered by the ROC government, but the country and the government that governs it are collectively known as Taiwan in popular lingual. There no need to remove info regarding the position of Taiwan and it's neighboring islands. The current version is based on years of discussions on the Taiwan talk page, so try not to mess with the consensus derived from all the discussions.
I understand where you're coming from, but try to remain as nonpartisan as possible on Wikipedia. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk: Taiwan and Talk: Republic of China. There more than enough disputes regarding the name of "Taiwan" to shake a stick at. I checked the page history of Taiwan and did not find the pervious version you claimed. For example, see [4], a random diff from over a year ago. I'm going to revert your edits and I going to have to ask you to withhold from engaging in a edit war before the dispute is settled. Thanxs! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You are blocked from editing wikipedia for 24h. WP:3RR vio.--CSTAR 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nationalist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Other people also violated this but they did not get blocked. It is unfair that I was the only one who got blocked. Also, I would just like to carry on the discussion about this topic with Cheese and others so I would like to be unblocked ASAP

Decline reason:

While I can understand your frustration, 3RR blocks are put in place specifically to discourage edit warring; you'll still be quite able to edit and discuss, once the block expires, provided you avoid any further 3RR violations. Looking at the page history, I didn't see any other editors go over 3 reverts, but if I'm missing some, feel free to link the diffs in question (you may want to email me if you do so. Please consider dispute resolution once your block expires. Apologies. Luna Santin 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edits to Chien-Ming Wang

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Yankees76 05:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Vic226_(chat) 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Chien-Ming Wang is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yankees76 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees76 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Guantian, Tainan

Stop it! Guantian is in Taiwan. On the island, and in the ROC, which is known as Taiwan. Again, see the naming conventions for yourself! Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. Stop trying to confuse the people. And if you really like the ROC that much, there is a link to the ROC in Taiwan anyways.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Jerrypp772000 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-ling Lin Mediation Request

I've accepted the request for mediation on this article. Please leave a quick note on my talk page that you're aware of this and we can begin the discussion there. Flakeloaf 16:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

helllo, are you user chiang kai-shek from before? You don't wanna get banned again man BlueShirts 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User Jerrypp772000 has violated 3RR

Looking at the history of Guantian, Tainan, it looks like nobody's made more than three reverts at this point in time. You're welcome to make a report at the 3RR noticeboard, if you like. All else aside, I'd encourage you to do everything possible to discuss your changes on talk pages instead of revert warring. We have a fairly robust dispute resolution process, on the wiki, and you're free to make use of it. In disputes with only two users, requests for a third opinion can be very helpful. Luna Santin 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

so...blueshirt brings up a point. Are you User:Heqong?!? Not that I mind, but the edits look rather similar. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence the birthplace of Chien-Ming Wang. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking². It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ladnav Yankees76 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey nationalist, I suggest you talk to Jiang or miborovsky about it. I think they have had experiences with this sort of idiocy, the guy just doesn't get it. The CIA World Factbook doesn't even mention "ROC", so does that mean the ROC doesn't exist? Fucking dumbasses, and I blame china for that. I think we all better call ourselves Chinese Taipei from now on, since that's what the official taiwanese baseball association calls itself in english, jeez. BlueShirts 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guantian

Stop editing Guantian, Tainan, Jiali, and Madou, I already told the reasons many times.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.--Jerrypp772000 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed several user warnings from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you. Vic226_(chat) 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing Madou. I've explained this w/ you before! See the naming conventions. Thank you.--Jerrypp772000 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I said in Talk:Rende, Tainan, and stop editing the article. There are more reasons to put Taiwan there instead of Taiwan, ROC. Also, please stop saying that I support Taiwan independence. I am only trying to help readers. Please assume good faith and stop being stubborn, thanks.--Jerrypp772000 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call my contributions as junks!--Jerrypp772000 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are not yours

Please read Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space and you will see that you are not allowed to remove warnings from your talk page. User pages belong to the community and not you. Thanks. --Borgarde 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and the Republic of China

I take it you are from the Republic of China. Please note that this encyclopedia is in English. In the English speaking world Taiwan is the common name for Republic of China, while China is the common name for People's Republic of China. Please stop removing Taiwan and adding Republic of China, most of the English speaking world would not be familiar with the situation with both Chinas. But, they will recognise Taiwan as ROC, and China as PROC. --Borgarde 04:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know the only nations that would be familiar w/ the ROC are the ones in East Asia, not including China. Taiwan is the common name for the ROC since like 80 years ago.--Jerrypp772000 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that you don't get it. I wasn't trying to give you the fact, I was just trying to tell you it's a long time.--Jerrypp772000 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, you are totally wrong, I was born and bred in Taiwan. And I doubt that you know more about Taiwan, ROC ,and the PRC then I do. I don't care if you are from the ROC or not, the facts are the facts. Taiwan is the common name for the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to address this: Taiwan is a geographical place, while the Republic of China is a political term for the government now administrating in Taiwan. Therefore, Taiwan is ultimately NOT the same as Republic of China. Saying "Chien-Ming Wang is born in Republic of China" is downright absurd since nobody would say he/she is born under some kind of governmental control. Saying "Wang is bron in Tainan City, Taiwan, ROC (or Republic of China)" is also pointless since almost no one would care to know which government power is administrating Taiwan when reading some Taiwanese person's article. All in all, please refrain from establishing your "cold hard facts" which involves political viewpoints. With only one viewpoint in confusing subjects such as politics, it will constitute a POV statement no matter what. Vic226_(chat) 18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of Chien-Ming Wang Article

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits . If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yankees76 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees76 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-3rr2 Yankees76 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of editing warnings

You have removed several user warnings from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you. MKoltnow 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.

For your convenience: [5] Tuxide 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. MKoltnow 06:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity block

24 hrs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See now you've been blocked twice, because you just can't follow the rules! Just stop it and just read what people are trying to tell you!--Jerrypp772000 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Page Vandalism

All contributions are strongly appreciated and encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages.. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Yankees76 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I would like to express my concern with several of your recent mass edits replacing and redirecting Taiwan links to Taiwan Province as well as mass insertions/replacements of Republic of China. "Taiwan" is commonly used to refer to the geograhical region and has generally been used in contexts not directly concerning the issues of sovereignty and political status, e.g. Chien-Ming Wang, while ROC is used when referencing political topics. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV and the associated talk page for past discussions on this topic and why we choose to maintain a certain degree of ambiguity on nonpolitical topics. If you feel the present conventions are inadequate, feel free to discuss them on the talk page prior to making any unilateral edits of this sort. It may not be your intent but mass changes concerning a controversial issue tend to raise soapboxing alarms. And finally, I realize this is an emotionally charged topic, but please try to be civil when engaging in discourse with other editors. Thanks. -Loren 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [6]. In response to your other allegation regarding my personal political views, I intervene when edit disputes become disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole, irrespective of the POV being promoted. No one is 100% neutral, but I think my past record (which you are free to examine) has been fairly evenhanded in that I've been accused of favoring pretty much every possible side in the whole Taiwan debate by various editors at various times. I would say that I find it puzzling that you seem unable to seperate my personal views with my course of action in intervening, but given the behavior I have observed you engaging in, doesn't come as a particular surprise. I am not asking you to change your political position, nor am I asking you to leave. What I am asking you to do is to stop unilaterally making edits which several other longtime editors find objectionable and utilize the talk pages to come to a consensus first. -Loren 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To Nationalist) I concur this. It is getting rather annoying. You've already been blocked from editting twice. Why can't you discuss these changes somewhere without going against concensus? --Borgarde 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, your tendentious editing and repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which are resisted by multiple editors is disruptive and displays poor wiki-etiquette - which has resulted in you being blocked twice already. You've displayed a easily rocognizable pattern of edits displaying a bias, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles which is unwelcome on this encyclopedia. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions - which is in direct defiance of an official policy on the English Wikipedia which states that "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. In future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future, instead of edit warring and do not add content without citing reliable sources. Thanks. Yankees76 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that you are a newcomer, so you should really follow the rules. Stop editing without discussing first. If you can't stop being annoying, you'll probably get blocked again.--Jerrypp772000 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Assuming Good Faith

Regarding this edit. [7] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Yankees76 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit.[8] Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.Yankees76 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your edits summary in this edit.[9] Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.Yankees76 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your personal attack in the following edit summary. [10]. This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Yankees76 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying things that aren't true about me. I have never said anything about being a Taiwan independence supporter. I've been trying to resolve the problem peacefully w/ you, but unfortunately, you don't seem to read what I'm telling you! Please read, Thank you.--Jerrypp772000 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary: [11] Please, assume good faith, I know I should not say this myself. But I can't stand it anymore! Stop saying things that aren't true about me! I've discussed peacefully so many times with you. In Talk:Guantian, Tainan, Talk:Rende, Tainan, and on this page. Please read those, and stop being stubborn.--Jerrypp772000 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit calling another user a "hypocrite" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jiali&diff=prev&oldid=103763877 ] This is your only warning. The next time you make an personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 07:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be my (or our) last straw

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your recent disruptive behavior. If you insist on staying stubborn with your own viewpoint and presuming all other perspectives from other editors to be completely wrong, I will file an RfC report on your disruptive behavior and attitude toward others, including assuming bad faith, refuse to resolve dispute in a peaceful way, and edit warring especially after two blocks on three-revert-rule violation. I suggest you to start open your mind and consider other viewpoints before making any more controversial/disputable edits. Thank you. Vic226_(chat) 04:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I don't even want to argue about putting ROC as birth place for that baseball player, seeing the sort of inane yet persistent arguments we're getting. I think Jiang said that there's some manual of style for this kind of stuff so we'd better follow it. But yeah, putting Chen Shui-bian as president of Taiwan is defnintely wrong, and I think that's already against the general consensus about politics in taiwan so we shouldn't worry too much about it, since in this instance it's the other guy that's the troll, not you. BlueShirts 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours due to making personal attacks against Wikipedians and edit warring. My advice is that you take some time off, then you can resume editing Wikipedia calmly and peacefully. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is fair that I was blocked for 24 hrs

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nationalist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didnt do anything wrong and some guy just came along to block me. Apparently, I was framed by a group of people who are ganging up against me including vicc and jerry. It is strange that I was blocked for 24 hrs for doing nothing, while Jerry was blocked for only 8 hours because he had violated the 3RRR rule. I respectfully request to be unblocked please. Thank you.-Nationalist 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block was appropriate for comments such as this one; please take Messedrocker's advice above. -- Sandstein 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Revision as of 20:06, 28 January 2007 edit Nationalist (talk \| contribs) 573 edits I do not think it is fair that I was blocked for 24 hrs ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:29, 28 January 2007 edit undo Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 187,439 edits →‎I do not think it is fair that I was blocked for 24 hrs: decline unblock Next edit →
Line 162:		Line 162:
	== I do not think it is fair that I was blocked for 24 hrs ==		== I do not think it is fair that I was blocked for 24 hrs ==

	{{unblock\|I didnt do anything wrong and some guy just came along to block me. Apparently, I was framed by a group of people who are ganging up against me including vicc and jerry. It is strange that I was blocked for 24 hrs for doing nothing, while Jerry was blocked for only 8 hours because he had violated the 3RRR rule. I respectfully request to be unblocked please. Thank you.-[[User:~~Nationalist~~\|~~Nationalist~~]] 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=I didnt do anything wrong and some guy just came along to block me. Apparently, I was framed by a group of people who are ganging up against me including vicc and jerry. It is strange that I was blocked for 24 hrs for doing nothing, while Jerry was blocked for only 8 hours because he had violated the 3RRR rule. I respectfully request to be unblocked please. Thank you.-Nationalist 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)\|decline=The block was appropriate for comments such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jiali&diff=prev&oldid=103763877 this one]; please take Messedrocker's advice above. -- [[User:Sandstein\|Sandstein]] 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)}}