User talk:Lo meiin
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Lo meiin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Matthew hk (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding "Asia country dispute page"
[edit]Greetings and felicitations. Thank you for the notice, though I don't have a proverbial dog in this fight, nor much of an opinion on the dispute(s). I've merely had some interest in the general subject of the list (and a wish for civility among and between editors). —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
But do you believe that Palestine should be categorized with the so called “generally recognized sovereign states” category or otherwise based on the evidence provided for both arguments?
Lo meiin (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
3O declined
[edit]Please note that I have declined your request for a third opinion as I couldn't find a discussion at the Talk page you'd provided in which you'd participated. At the page you linked the only edit I saw by you was the erroneous placement of an ANI discussion notice. You are welcome to relist your dispute with a correct link, or consider other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers.
response to notice
[edit]I never attacked any editor, nor did I intend to. I probably was not aware. I dearly apologize for the misunderstanding
Lo meiin (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Once again, that behaviour mentioned is in the past, and i apologize for any misunderstandings caused. Once again, I will continue to contribute constructively to wiki articles and refute that I am a POV editor, such as that I have denounced derogatory remarks regarding pacific island nations and condemned the behaviours of banned user talatastan and his numerous POV sock puppets.
Lo meiin (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CIV and WP:AVOIDYOU. If you don't agree with my comment, you may explain why your opinion is different. It is not up to you to evaluate my political and geographical knowledge. Also note that all the articles in the Israel-Arab area are under 30-500 rule, so technically you're not allowed to be writing even on their talk pages. Usually anyone is allowed to write on the talk pages, but only as long as they are constructive and civil. “WarKosign” 04:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologize we got off the wrong foot, and as a young editor, I am still growing. As to my opinion, yes, I do believe that clarification on Israels and Palestine’s legal status is necessary, but not in the country profile as a heading. Instead, it should be mentioned within one of the subheadings of the article and the information is already clarified in international recognition of the state of Palestine and international recognition of Israel respectively.
Lo meiin (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Alert
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
“WarKosign” 04:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Please self-revert
[edit]Please self-revert here [1], you need to seek consensus first.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
General Prohibition
[edit]Per Wikipedia:A/I/PIA: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.--Shrike (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is your last warning. You are not allowed to edit any article in the I/P area. Continuing to do so with get you banned. “WarKosign” 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Very funny, WarKosign , using my words against me. I’m not threatened or scared of you, because you are the one reverting a consensus that’s been there for a week and are a POV pro Israeli editor yourself.
Lo meiin (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- "reverting a consensus that’s been there for a week"
- <snort> You made a wide-scale edit that went against the consensus reached two years ago, and I immediately implored you to discuss it in the Talk page. You then started adding POV content to the newly configured article and reverted other editors that changed the format back to how it was. So, sorry, even if we set aside that you are not experienced enough as an editor to become involved in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (unless maybe you would if one takes into account your edits under your former names of Talastan, Kawhilaugh42, etc., but admitting to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor won't help you any), your edits consistently have run afoul of Wikipedia policies, with few exceptions. And your uncivil behavior towards fellow editors won't help you, either. Once again, I urge you to commence complying with Wikipedia rules and to begin treating fellow editors in a civil manner. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Sloppy edits with incorrect grammar, spelling and punctuation
[edit]I recommend that you rewrite this recent edit of yours so that it is in proper form for an encyclopedia. It is full of misspellings, faulty capitalization, bad grammar, and other errors that are unacceptable for an article in English-language Wikipedia. Please correct these mistakes before an editor reverts your edits for not complying with Wikipedia's standards. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know, I will work on that. Also, I ask that you please less consistently revert my edits as I have ceased to edit in an POV matter as of this point. Secondly, what your friend WarKosign seems not to understand is that I am not making any major changes out of the consensus on the Asian nations page; I am simply trying to rearrange them in alphabetical order, to make the heading more concise (as Taiwan’s and Palestine’s and others situation is already explained in the chart), and when it comes to Palestine’s situation, I am explaining it in a fully objective manner. Yes, Israel claims the west Bank as “Judea and Samaria” and Jerusalem as “united Jerusalem for 3 millennia” but these claims are not internationally recognized. And that is a crucial detail missing. And besides, Israel hasn’t formally annexed the West Bank-just yet. Anyways, I hope we are on better terms now.
- "Thank you for letting me know, I will work on that." You're welcome. You seem to be able to use proper grammar and punctuation from time to time, so I assume that the problem isn't lack of familiarity with written English, but carelessness on your part. Editing Wikipedia isn't like texting to a friend, and edits should be well written, clear and concise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or a personal blog.
- "Also, I ask that you please less consistently revert my edits as I have ceased to edit in an POV matter as of this point." You write this the day after you made at least a dozen POV edits, mostly rehashing edits for that you've already been informed by numerous editors that you should obtain a consensus before submitting? I believe that, as should be apparent by now, you can expect to have your edits reverted when they do not follow the rules of Wikipedia (because they're POV, unsourced, etc.), and to have your edits left alone (perhaps with a note, such as I left today, for you to improve or correct them) when they do comport with Wikipedia rules.
- By the way, you should heed the advice given to you by Shrike in the section above this one regarding Wikipedia's general prohibition on inexperienced editors getting involved in matters concerning the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. As I warned you during your first week of editing (at least under your current name), you have been in violation of such general prohibition from Day 1, and I urged you then, and urge you now, to follow Wikipedia's rules. While I have not taken administrative action against your violation of such rule, just as I didn't file any administrative complaints against you for your abuse and harassment against me, other editors may not be as disinclined as I am to seek administrative redress. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]There is a discussion regarding your behavior on the Admininstrators noticeboard. “WarKosign” 17:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please ignore the previous notice. I moved the case to a more appropriate venue: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lo_meiin. “WarKosign” 18:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Onus
[edit]Regardless of correct reading of procedure pertaining to Arbitration enforcement, per WP:ONUS, you should probably wait until the RfC is closed before going a head with the addition — no? El_C 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I waited a long time, but when I saw that we couldn’t reach a consensus, I decided to bring about a NPOV solution that will suit everybody
Lo meiin (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, you saw that your RfC had backfired (with the consensus being against your desired result) and so you ignored it and went back to editing without seeking a consensus, not only in the article for which you filed the RfC, but for a myriad other articles that did not present your POV that Palestine is a generally recognized sovereign state. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Now why would you delete my comment? If you are interested in "bring[ing] about a NPOV solution that will suit everybody" you need to let everybody's voice be heard.
- BTW, I see that you closed your second RfD (labeled "RfD II) for the "List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia" article. Good to see that you accept the consensus that clearly emerged from your RfD: that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state and should not be grouped in the same section as generally recognized sovereign states such as Thailand, Turkmenistan and Israel. While it is true that consensus can change over time, particularly when circumstances change, but I recommend that you wait at least a year before seeking another RfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion invitation
[edit]Hi. A Taiwanese separatist is trying to get his non-country to be included on the UN map. So, I kindly invite you to a discussion at Talk:United_Nations#New_Map and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Map_of_United_Nations_member_states on map coloring for the UN. Wadaad (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Wadaad: This is a violation of WP:CANVASSING. Please don't do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Lo meiin continuing battleground behaviour. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Signature
[edit]Please put your signature at the end of your talk page comment, and not on a new line. Doing so makes it difficult to read the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)request
[edit]
Lo meiin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have repeatedly pledged that I am trying to work out a just solution to editing conflicts on wikipedia, such as the one on the A-I conflict , have acknowledged where I went wrong, and have NEVER insulted someone because of their heritage or nationality
Decline reason:
This doesn't even come close to addressing the problems with your conduct. For example, "have repeatedly promised" is problematic in its own right because something like this shows your promises to be worthless. Huon (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2019 (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.
.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here I acknowledge that I have had some questionable behaviour in the past (such as battleground behaviour and confrontational stances with other editors) but, if given a second chance, this time I will do whatever it takes to redeem myself, and I offer my sincerest apologies to every editor that was impacted by my actions. If given a second chance, I will cease all editing of all and any controversial topics, and will only engage them through appropriate and adequate use of dispute resolution. Furthermore, I have never said that wiki editors cannot be objective because of their nationality, I specifically said that all nd any pov attacks from any nationality should be condemned equally and any nationality has the potential to be POV. For example, as I am Chinese, I let my personal biases get the better of me when editing wikipedia articles mentioning Taiwan, so I, too, have the potential to POV edit. And I never used such a disgusting anti-Semitic libel such as that, and there is no room for racism here on wikipedia. Once again, I am remorseful for my actions and I am truly sorry. If given a second chance, I will do whatever asked to make it up to those affected by my policies. I acknowledge what I have done, and I am willing to move forward and start a new chapter in my tenure which will be defined through cooperation and maximum restraint. Furthermore, I denounce POV pushing and personal ad hominem attacks in all forms and against anyone, regardless of their views. I have hit a bump on the road, and I am willing to seriously grow and learn from it, and I applaud (and continue to applaud) the maximum restraint and upmost patience that AuH2O republican and other editors have applied when dealing with me. I am willing to put my way in the past and being a new era of cooperation and consensus and solution making in order to further make wikipedia an even better platform than it is. [[User:Lo meiin|Lo meiin]] ([[User talk:Lo meiin#top|talk]]) 01:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)}}
- You should consider a topic ban from all articles relating to politics and geography (broadly construed). Just saying you'll avoid controversial topics opens the door to saying that you didn't know that a topic was controversial. Specifying that you'll avoid political and geographic articles would leave less grey area and room for excuses. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ian.thomson Yes, I fully and wholeheartedly agree to a full prohibition on any political or geographical articles except for those deemed appropriate for me by the wiki community only. But btw, is dispute resolution requests exempt or no?if not, I will respect that. Furthermore, it is utterly wrong to suggest I made any racist comments, as I specifically said I welcome users from all around the world, regardless of nationality ( even Taiwanese and Israeli ), but I only said that any nationality has the potential to be POV as they may have strong feeling on a subject based off personal biases. For example, because I am mainland Chinese, I tended to be in favour of the PRC over Taiwan, and Palestinian and/or Arab users tend to be bias against Israel (and sometimes Towing as low as to be antisemetic) and likewise, Israeli or pro Israeli users tend to be bias agains Arab or Palestinian users, and some Indian or Pakistani users would be bias on the Kashmir issue as they have strong personal feelings. I never said anything racist and to suggest Jewish people cannot be objective due to their religion is honestly disgusting and a cowardly anti Semitic slur. I am a strong opponent of racism, and All users regardless of nationality shall feel welcome and not discriminated against. I believe that AuH2O and all editors have an obligation to track down any sockpuppets of any nationality, as sock puppets have no place on Wikipedia.
- Ian.thomson Yes, I am fully committed to a topic wide ban on geographical and political topics, except those deemed okay by the wiki community and will only seek dispute resolution is permitted to do so, if given a second and last chance.
Lo meiin (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- No edits relating to political or geographic articles, period. That includes dispute resolution posts concerning political or geographic articles.
- You also need to stop bringing up any user's race or nationality, even if it's your own. The statement
as I am Chinese, I let my personal biases get the better of me when editing wikipedia articles mentioning Taiwan
is racist, even if it's directed at yourself. Making a racist statement about yourself does not excuse your statements about other ethnicities. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Done Lo meiin (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Lo meiin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I fully and wholeheartedly agree with all the conditions of lifting this block, and as such, will not edit on any political or geographic topic until I am permitted to do so, or seek dispute resolution mechanism. Furthermore, my sincerest apologies go to AuH2O, warkosign, and any editor that may have found my actions too aggressive. Also, as evidence of how I take a firm stand against racism, and do not tolerate it in any way, is how I once vehemently condemned another user for his/her repugnant and insensitive comments on how millions of innocent people in pacific island nations should be “washed up by rising tides [referring to rising sea levels]”, An ad hominem attack due to frustration of their governments policies. All I said was that anybody, regardless of their nationality, has strong feelings about a particular issue that concerns them or their socio-political identity, and I have never said (and will never say) opinions of Jewish or pro israel users on Wikipedia is worthless or cannot be objective, as that goes against all of what I stand for and that of Wikipedia. I assure you that you will not regret this decision and that I will fully redeem myself, and I will contribute to making wikipedia a positive and comfortable environment for everyone. Lo meiin (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2019 (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.
I have stated my full commitment to all your terms and I fully agreed to a full topic ban on political and geographical articles. I believe the time is right that I be given a second chance to re-enter the wiki community and to cooperate constructively with my fellow editors. I strongly urge you to move forward with this decision to unblock me. Thank you.
Lo meiin (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Why are you persistent in ignoring my requests to lift the block in place on me? I have agreed to all conditions to be unblocked and am ready to cooperate constructively on all non political or geographical topics. Once again, I am strongly urging you to lift the block in place and give me a second chance
Lo meiin (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have open unblock requests that any admin can look at. I didn't say that I would unblock you, I just said that you would need to agree to topic bans -- the reason being that no admin would consider unblocking you without them.
- To be clearer: I am not telling you the magic words you need to say to get me to unblock you because no such words exist. What I am doing is explaining the things you need to show you now understand and believe before any other admin would consider unblocking you.
- To that end, you should also consider explaining how you intend to help the site if you are going to be topic banned from the only area you edited so far. That is, what sort of topics and articles will you edit? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- The noticeboard discussion that led to the endorsement of the indefinite block of the user's account, which discussion has since been closed and archived, may be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#User:Lo_meiin_continuing_battleground_behaviour. When such discussion was closed, the following message was added: "The indefinite block is endorsed. The unblocking administrator (if any) should take this discussion into account before unblocking. (nac) --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)." In conformity with such instructions, I am adding the link to the archived discussion for the benefit of any administrator that is considering, or may consider in the future, the user's unblock request. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment & recommendation
[edit]I just noticed that this user made these now-reverted edits at a project that I participate in, which covers states with limited international recognition (which, for obvious reasons, is a highly controversial subject). Their edits particularly focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict. If this user's unblock request is accepted, I recommend that their topic ban on politics also explicitly mentions that this user ought not to edit any page (not just articles, but also projects and portals) covering geopolitics, unrecognized/partially-recognized countries, and/or the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Vanilla Wizard yes, I acknowledge I did that, and back then, I was only concerned about the effects on the psychological well being of Palestinian and arab viewers on Wikipedia those edits would have. Now that is in the past, and I am ready to move forward and engage constructively with all editors.