User talk:Wtsao

COI Reminder

Whether or not this is the result of a conflict, you have a clearly stated bias and should also be careful withWP:V and WP:NPOV. Promoting the questionable criticism section to the top of the article was particularly problematic. -- samj _insup>out 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The cloud computing article is not neutral. Being critical of that isn't COI. According to your blog, you work for a major stakeholder in "cloud computing". That's COI. You should avoid calling the kettle black and avoid interfering with neutral third parties. Wtsao (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCOI - citing WP:COI without associated policy violations can be considered a personal attack and calling yourself a "neutral third party" when you have a clearly stated bias is disingenuous at best. -- samj _in^out 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism reminder

Hello, I'm Jayron32. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to cloud computing have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. -- samj _in^out 00:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass reverting changes made in good faith is vandalism. You calling me a vandal, that's hypocrisy. Wtsao (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Cloud computing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- samj _in^out 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- samj _in^out 11:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus process

Following up on the listing at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to be sure that you understand the consensus process on Wikipedia, since you seem to be a fairly new user. Your edit summaries suggest that you are not familiar with this policy, particularly when you state here: "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote from the consensus policy, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." This cycle is so common that there is a common acronym for it: BRD, "bold, revert, discuss." The discussion stage is crucial.

While I know it is distressing to have somebody else come in and undo your hard work, it's important to try to put aside your feelings about it to see if there is some merit to their concerns. If you find yourself unable to reach consensus with another contributor (or group of contributors), you may pursue dispute resolution to get input from uninvolved contributors. Meanwhile, your work is not lost, but remains in history to be restored if consensus should find it appropriate. But even if you are strongly convinced that the other person is wrong, you can't simply keep restoring your preferred version. When another editor reverts you, this is not vandalism in Wikipedia's definition. To quote that policy, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Restoring your preferred version is therefor not exempt from WP:3RR. And even if you don't technically cross the threshold of 3RR it may constitute edit warring.

At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at Cloud computing. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 72 hours, for using IPs to edit war and violate 3RR on cloud computing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

IP sock charges are bogus. I would like an investigation to clear the charge and a subsequent apology for wrongful blocking.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What the hell? I didn't use an IP sock for anything - one of the checkuser accounts can clear that up. You have my permission. Please go ahead and check. Also I did not violate the 3RR rule. These are both bogus charges.

Decline reason:

It seems rather irrefutable that either you have logged out to make edits to the article, and then covered up that fact by refering to yourself in the third person, or you personally asked a friend from outside Wikipedia to show up and support your position. Either way, it doesn't matter because its not our position to determine which of those two happened here. Its clear ONE of those two happened, and since either is equally problematic, that's enough. Jayron32 02:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.