User talk:Teeninvestor

Teeninvestor is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation.

Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated.

He will return when his wikistress has dissipated and his confidence in the wikicommunity has been restored.

Archive Sept.2008- March. 2009.

Archive March. 2009- July 2009.

Archive Sept.2009- Dec. 2009.

Archive Dec.2009-August 2010

This is Teeninvestor's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Blocked for violating restriction

You are now blocked for 3 weeks for editing both Great Divergence, Economic history of China (pre-1911) and Chinese economic reform in violation of your editing restriction. Your editing restriction will remain in effect after the block has expired. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Chinese economic reform and Great Divergence in my editing restriction? GPM has edited it exactly twice in the past month and hasn't commented there in weeks. This is an obvious case of trip-up. First the above user invites me to comment on ANI and then blocks and topic bans me for putting an issue on ANI (this alone is extremely outrageous) Then he blocks me for 3 weeks for the "crime" of editing an article that GPM edited 3-5 weeks ago. This is outrageous. If wikipedia treats its contributers like this it won't last long.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GPM as edited the article within one month. I will take this to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked with caveats

Per the e-mail you've sent me, I've unblocked you, as long as those provisions are kept. However, remember to keep a cool head, don't act rashly, and don't interact with GPM. Avoid the controversial articles, and all of that jazz. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other areas you could would like to contribute in for a couple of months and perhaps at your RFCU offer to voluntarily take three months off editing the disputed topic and associated articles to gain experience in policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't disappear. I've always enjoyed learning new information by reading the articles you create. I thought I wrote a thank-you for Qing conquest theory but it seems I never saved the edit. —Soap— 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent actions

I saw Gun Powder Ma's recent tag on Chinese economic reform as it happened, and seeing that it was dubious (from what I read about the Chinese Civil War), looked to the Loren 4 source to find the unsourced fact and indeed it was there. When I went to cite it, though, you had already done it with an aggrieved edit summary. Your assessment that it was a provocation was probably correct, though you are not flattered in the new ANI complaint for which GPM used that edit. My suggestion would be to not be so quick to take the bait, when uninvolved editors can easily fix it. If you had waited five minutes there, you would probably look much better (and GPM worse) to uninvolved judges. Quigley (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article

Hi, before I even start to review it, please updated your references. Please look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book to see the proper format to reference a book; all the book references you are using are not in a proper format. Look at example 1 and example 2 on the link i posted. Article looks good tho! Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) ...i pasted the link .. not sure why didnt work before, sorry. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing the GA nomination of the article Chinese economic reform.

Reasons:

1) Article is unstable with too many changes made every couple of days for 8+ weeks. 2) Edit wars about this article over the past 30 day involving multiple parties. 3) Person who nominated the article was banned for 3 weeks because of comments pertaining to the nominated article. (Whoever nominated the article should be present to at least answer 1 question from me, this is not a Wikipedia rule, it is my own. The previous 2 points above are Wikipedia rules and warrant failure of the article)

Please restart the GA nomination process when either a consensus is reached or the article becomes stable.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks due to your continued hounding and accusations against Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) as evidenced in this edit summary as well as other edits. If another admin considers unblocking this editor, please consult with me first. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case there was any doubt, your interaction ban remains in effect. See Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Teeninvestor

Tenmei has asked that you receive the following as he has notified all other interested parties:

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)

Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial

Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Explanation: I was blocked for "violating" an interaction ban that the community had deemed ineffective, and even the blocking admin stated that they should be modified. 1 2 3 4 5. In addition, even assuming that the block was correct, a three-week block for violating a restriction put in lieu of a 48 hour block is completely disproportionate and a great example of WP:GAME (the "punishment" block being ten times the length of the original block). For these two reasons I believe the block should be reduced or eliminated altogether. In addition, O question the actions of the the blocking admin, user:Toddst1. He has been completely one sided considering that he had completely ignored massive bouts of personal attacks and harassment from the editor I "harassed" (although I had performed no personal attacks but was restricted for posting on ANI)

1 2 3.

1 even when I brought it to his attention on his talk page. He advised me to go to ANI 3. The most outrageous part is when he blocked me for following his advice to go to ANI and imposed the sanctions on me which lead to this block in the first place (I also ask for a review of my initial block and resulting sanctions which I also felt to be illegitimate, as they were imposed for going on ANI).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<b>Explanation:</b> I was blocked for "violating" an interaction ban that the community had deemed ineffective, and even the blocking admin stated that they should be modified. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=378786703 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378747804&oldid=378745716 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378748216&oldid=378747804 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378749651&oldid=378748570 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378756977&oldid=378756396 5]. In addition, even assuming that the block was correct, a three-week block for violating a restriction put in lieu of a 48 hour block is completely disproportionate and a great example of WP:GAME (the "punishment" block being ten times the length of the original block). For these two reasons I believe the block should be reduced or eliminated altogether. In addition, O question the actions of the the blocking admin, user:Toddst1. He has been completely one sided considering that he had completely ignored massive bouts of personal attacks and harassment from the editor I "harassed" (although I had performed no personal attacks but was restricted for posting on ANI)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_metallurgy&diff=prev&oldid=378075917 1] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Divergence&diff=378077542&oldid=378075088 2] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_metallurgy&curid=27884091&diff=378184791&oldid=378184209 3]. 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=356858590&oldid=356606366 1] even when I brought it to his attention on his talk page. He <b>advised</b> me to go to ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=377121734&oldid=377110320 3]. The most outrageous part is when he blocked me for <b>following his advice</b> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=378365939&oldid=378329236 to go to ANI] and imposed the sanctions on me which lead to this block in the first place (I also ask for a review of my initial block and resulting sanctions which I also felt to be illegitimate, as they were imposed for going on ANI).[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor#top|talk]]) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<b>Explanation:</b> I was blocked for "violating" an interaction ban that the community had deemed ineffective, and even the blocking admin stated that they should be modified. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=378786703 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378747804&oldid=378745716 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378748216&oldid=378747804 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378749651&oldid=378748570 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378756977&oldid=378756396 5]. In addition, even assuming that the block was correct, a three-week block for violating a restriction put in lieu of a 48 hour block is completely disproportionate and a great example of WP:GAME (the "punishment" block being ten times the length of the original block). For these two reasons I believe the block should be reduced or eliminated altogether. In addition, O question the actions of the the blocking admin, user:Toddst1. He has been completely one sided considering that he had completely ignored massive bouts of personal attacks and harassment from the editor I "harassed" (although I had performed no personal attacks but was restricted for posting on ANI)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_metallurgy&diff=prev&oldid=378075917 1] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Divergence&diff=378077542&oldid=378075088 2] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_metallurgy&curid=27884091&diff=378184791&oldid=378184209 3]. 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=356858590&oldid=356606366 1] even when I brought it to his attention on his talk page. He <b>advised</b> me to go to ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=377121734&oldid=377110320 3]. The most outrageous part is when he blocked me for <b>following his advice</b> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=378365939&oldid=378329236 to go to ANI] and imposed the sanctions on me which lead to this block in the first place (I also ask for a review of my initial block and resulting sanctions which I also felt to be illegitimate, as they were imposed for going on ANI).[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor#top|talk]]) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<b>Explanation:</b> I was blocked for "violating" an interaction ban that the community had deemed ineffective, and even the blocking admin stated that they should be modified. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=378786703 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378747804&oldid=378745716 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378748216&oldid=378747804 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378749651&oldid=378748570 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=378756977&oldid=378756396 5]. In addition, even assuming that the block was correct, a three-week block for violating a restriction put in lieu of a 48 hour block is completely disproportionate and a great example of WP:GAME (the "punishment" block being ten times the length of the original block). For these two reasons I believe the block should be reduced or eliminated altogether. In addition, O question the actions of the the blocking admin, user:Toddst1. He has been completely one sided considering that he had completely ignored massive bouts of personal attacks and harassment from the editor I "harassed" (although I had performed no personal attacks but was restricted for posting on ANI)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_metallurgy&diff=prev&oldid=378075917 1] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Divergence&diff=378077542&oldid=378075088 2] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_metallurgy&curid=27884091&diff=378184791&oldid=378184209 3]. 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=356858590&oldid=356606366 1] even when I brought it to his attention on his talk page. He <b>advised</b> me to go to ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=377121734&oldid=377110320 3]. The most outrageous part is when he blocked me for <b>following his advice</b> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=378365939&oldid=378329236 to go to ANI] and imposed the sanctions on me which lead to this block in the first place (I also ask for a review of my initial block and resulting sanctions which I also felt to be illegitimate, as they were imposed for going on ANI).[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor#top|talk]]) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}