User talk:ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR

July 2022

Hello, I'm Chip3004. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cheng Yi (actor), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chip3004 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cheng Yi (actor), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chip3004 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using youtube as a reference per WP:RSP, also any future reverts may result in a block Chip3004 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we talk about verifiable facts, we also need to verify that the control entities endorse this kind of publication that damages the good image of a person and is a violation of the right to have a good name. I am not making threats, I simply request that a paragraph be removed that leagues is noticeable that it is malicious and intends to ruin the career of the actress at all costs.I believe that Wikipedia should not allow this kind of abuse or cyberbullying because this is just gossip from China that can ruin the good image of the actress, they do not even use references from control entities, only gossip articles.I appreciate taking into account my recommendation, as it is urgent to correct this kind of malicious comments ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are clear legal threats. Even if you do not intend to take legal action yourself, you are using the threat of legal action as a cudgel to pressue others to accept your edits. You must withdraw these threats or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — TNT (talk • she/her) 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: et al, apologies for stepping in here, I was looking at Talk:Yuan Bingyan when I made the decision to block — TNT (talk • she/her) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime Thanks, but no apology is needed; I was almost there myself. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #60399

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry if my words were misinterpreted, but it was not my intention to make legal threats, I was desperate to see the injustice. I'm actually new here and didn't stop to look at all the guidelines for posting a discussion.

However, as I noticed that in the biography of the actress they published this paragraph in the top line that you can see as soon as you search in Google, then I inquired about what Wikipedia indicates about the public figures have the right to their privacy and not to be defamed. (See reference below)

As can be seen, this does not occur in other biographies of artists and the truth is that I consider it a malicious operation to try to damage the good image of the actress throughout the network, affecting her international image as well.

This is a typical behavior of the haters in the country where she is from, because this is how they end the careers of many of their artists. And they are succeeding. But it is not fair that as soon as you do a Google search, you find this defamation.

To further clarify this issue, the incident was published by the social network of that country and malicious people have taken advantage of this, to aggravate the situation.

However, no government control authority of that country has made any mention of this incident and no official statement has been made about it. Everything has been slander and defamation. Poor girl.

For this reason, I created this discussion to ask for help from the administrators, who are the ones to correct this ill-intentioned comment.

I did not know what to do and that is why I turn to you so that my user will continue to be blocked. But do not allow any more outrages to be committed against this actress.

The matter has not yet been clarified so that with this comment, already take for granted the facts and without the authorization of any control entity.

That's all, it is not my intention to threaten anyone, I just ask for help from those who can do it.

Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_privacy ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not seem to understand Wikipedia's purpose and seem likely to go right back to the same behavior. Please read WP:GAB and the links on your talk page that describe our rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2022 (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.

The Reason you were blocked is for making threats or taking legal action, you see when a user makes threats or takes legal action usually the user that did that is usally blocked indef or temporary it just depends on the issue. Chip3004 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand, sorry for my ignorance, but my real intention was to remove this defamatory comment, because no control entity in the country where she is originally from, has spoken out and it is not fair to find this type of references in her biography at first glance as if she were a criminal, the issue was for the lack of payment of a tax that has already been corrected and the study of herself did so by apologizing to the public. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR The country where Wikipedia's servers are located does not have such "control entities". And Wikipedia is not bound by other countries' "control entities". So none of your complaints along those lines actually have any meaning. Your point might have merit, but you can't threaten legal trouble, even by proxy. Hope this helps. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't understand your phrase " The country where Wikipedia's servers are located does not have such "control entities".

When I refer to this I do not mean Wikipedia I want to clarify: I mean the controlling entities in the country where the actress is originally from, that is, the tax administrators of that country.

Because every country in the world where its citizens are taxed, has entities that control these taxes.

So the name of Wikipedia has nothing to do with my clarification. I hope this will clarify it further.

Thank you very much for your comment. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the best course of action is to avoid making threats or taking legal action. Chip3004 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Again I apologize for my mistake. Now I know clearly. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but I think your block appeal is unlikely to succeed in its current form.

Blocks under the "no legal threat" are "soft" in the sense that they can be fairly easily lifted as soon as you disengage from making legal threats. Apologizing for violating the rule is a good start, but the problem is that you say I consider it a malicious operation, Everything has been slander and defamation., and do not allow any more outrages to be committed against this actress etc. in the appeal. Taken together, those probably constitutes an implied legal threat under the block standard (though the reviewing administrator might have a different opinion).

There would be absolutely no problem in saying that the statements are poorly sourced and/or probably false, and that for those reasons they should not be in the article. You might even argue that whoever put those statements in the article should be banned (although you will have a hard time getting someone banned just for writing one poorly-sourced paragraph). But you can say all that without any reference to legal terms. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, they are deficient sources because they are not from a competent entity that is related to the subject to pronounce it.

However, it is no longer useful, with these comments, the haters have already finished the career of the actress. They achieved what they set out to do. I was worried about her international image, but since that operation is normal where she is from, they use other international platforms, to do the same thing.

Here I saw that a user congratulated the one who did this saying: "Very good for showing who that criminal is" and it is not fair.

I still insist, that there is no control body that issued a statement on the matter. But, they already buried her alive. This hurts me a lot.

It no longer matters that I am unlocked, it is not worth continuing to fight for justice. I only realize that there are very bad people in the world, but likewise, the payment of that karma will be equal to their evil.

Thanks anyway for the advice. 201.185.155.25 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also mention that your argument of no government control authority of that country has made any mention of this incident and no official statement has been made about it is fairly irrelevant. "Reliable source" as understood by Wikipedia does not mean "the government". Many governments will be silent or even lie about many affairs for many reasons, sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes for not-so legitimate reasons. An example of legitimate reason is the US judicial system where lots of tax prosecutions end with a plea deal where a company accused of tax evasion pays some amount of money but does not have to admit they did any tax evasion (even if they totally did). Examples of illegitimate reasons are the Watergate scandal or the Great Chinese Famine, where the US and Chinese governments lied to avoid scrutiny.

That may be a cultural perspective problem at play here. From my (limited) knowledge, in most (Southeast?) Asian culture it is considered bad/impolite to disagree with someone in a position of authority (be that an older family member or a government bureaucrat). This can lead to a predisposition to believe that persons in positions of authority are more likely to be right than would be warranted. Or, alternatively, that the closest bureaucrat might be wrong/incompetent/evil (which we know because we deal with them), but the superior bureaucrat is just/competent/good, it’s just that we do not have access to them (and thus our belief that they are just/competent/good goes unchallenged).

On the other hand, the English Wikipedia is not only from a Western-looking perspective, but even among Western societies it is also a product of the more individual-centric ("liberal") fringes. Sourcing operates on a nullius in verba basis where the weight of authority in arguments is, maybe not zero, but as small as it has ever been in any project of that size. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are right, maybe my Western point of view does not agree with this exaggeration.

Actually, I see that in many other countries there is a difference between evading taxes that is part of the notification made by the control entity and the tax is not paid and another is that an omission or late payment is notified and sanctioned. But the company rectifies and can continue with its normal operations. Another thing is an evader who is notified three times and does not pay by making the mistake.

The study of her reported that she paid the penalty and rectified it, which is very different from being a tax evader. I myself have been a public official in the financial area and I know about this.

But they succeeded. It's sad to see.

Thank you very much for your advice. ALGUIENQUETIENEALGOQUEDECIR (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan government

I love Pakistan Babar111 me (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]