User talk:86.182.32.83

August 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Type 99 tank. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Khazar (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Type 99. Khazar (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2015

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Krakatoa Katie 01:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

Added properly sourced materials according to Wikipedia's guideline. Translations of non-English materials followed Wikipedia's guideline. Criticism of these edits having "no reference source" are groundless. Please review history, thank you. 86.182.32.83 (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You ignored several warnings and were subsequently blocked. After this block expires, I suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss the content you wish to add. If you resume edit-warring after this block is lifted, your next block will be for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 2 September 2015 (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.

I will keep what you have said in mind, but I believe your concerns to be unfounded. The warnings you referred were generic reasons given for reverts rather than directed at actual faults. Specifically, warnings such as "unsourced content" and "unreliable source" were given, while all my edits were accompanied by references and came from authoritative sources. Furthermore, I have to my best of my abilities, addressed specific criticisms raised by these warnings, such as using alternate sources. These were met with undo using the same generic reasons. No offers were made to "talk" about it. I had no choice but to revert what I assumed as disruptive editing and other attempts at removing referenced source. Again, I am keeping what you said in mind, but please note the circumstances. 86.182.32.83 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These warning I gave beforehand were anything but generic. I specifically informed you that your contributions are adding unacceptable sources like China Central Television, a mouthpiece of the communist party. As for addressing criticism, you only responded to the talk page after you were blocked and did so by violating copyright laws as indicated by the warning given below. Khazar (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My IP changed, so I can no longer edit with the original IP address.

Your version of events is littered with inaccuracies. Unlike what you have claimed, the warning you issued on 31 of August contained nothing specific. In it, "unsourced content" was cited as an explanation while all edits I made were provided with proper references. Your warning is therefore generic, if not frivolous.

You also critized some of the sources as "Tabloid". So, to address such critisms, more references to CCTV were added after my ban was lifted. Prior to that, you have not voiced any objection against CCTV to be used as references. Furthermore, you did not raise any such criticism in the article's talk page either. What you have done on the talk page was a request for a translation of an interview, which I addressed to as soon as I was able. Also, said translation that I made was removed by third-party due to copyright concern rather than a copyright violation.

I also advise you to look up WP:WQ.

86.146.24.230 (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's common for editors to further review sources added to pages. After revising your sources a second time, I noticed that it was state media and was therefore unacceptable. Poor sources are an initial reason why I issued the above warnings. As for your copyright violations (yes, they are violations), remember that posting transcripts or uploading copyrighted photos is indeed a violation. Whether it's a written as "concern" or "violation" does not validate you actions in anyway nor do my so-called requests. Before you advise registered editors about Etiquette, revise how you just responded to an administrator above. Refusing to accept their knowledgeable input while clinging to your flawed views isn't considered civil by any means. Neither is this edit summary where you said complaint rejected as if you owned the page. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My IP got changed by ISP, so I can no longer reply as the original IP.

Your version of events contradicts itself because by your own admission, you have not even realized I have included state-media as references until you (stopped with immediate reverts and) started editing. So your complaints about state-media came way later, not before you called the sources "tabloid", and not before you issued the warning at the top of this page about "unsourced content" on sourced materials.
As to copyrights, posting the translation translated by myself would not be a copyright violation. You too had the same belief since you were the one asking for the translation. Issue arose when another user had doubt on ownership of said translation, and doubt is all that is needed for something to be removed on copyright ground. Note that it is a doubt, not a confirmation that the translation violated copyright.
I advised you to read WP:WQ before because your wordings are becoming more and more personal. Your replies are now going off-topic from our disagreement in the Type 99 tank article. I once again advise you to read WP:WQ, and ask you to cease your confrontational tone. 86.136.122.86 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: with regards to your WP:OWN accusation, what you have done there is a form of quote mining. The rest of the edit comment clearly spelled out my rationale for rejecting your complaint being "government website is not a tabloid", as that complaint about "tabloid" is just nonsensical. Now this is interesting, because despite me explicitly stating I was referencing state-media, you didn't seem to care. 86.136.122.86 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my previous points are still causing confusion for you, then it is out of my reach to actually help you understand your mistakes. The points made above reflect your lack of understanding about the subject and your poor assumptions against me. However, that doesn't mean that I won't stop with the intelligent discourse. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your addition to Talk:Type 99 tank has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Scr★pIron^IV 20:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.