User talk:CTF99

This is CTF99's talk page, where you can send them 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.

AfC notification: Draft:Wang Zheng (Pilot) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wang Zheng (Pilot). Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wang Zheng (Pilot) has been accepted

Wang Zheng (Pilot), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zulutimepilot, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Zulutimepilot! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Wang Zheng (pilot), and I noticed that your username, "Zulutimepilot", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. This account appears to represent Zulutime Pilot, https://zulutimepilot.com/. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You may be correct that one of the other editors at Wang Zheng (pilot) also has a conflict of interest, and you will see on their talk page that I have asked them to disclose this. I will note that you appear to have been using multiple accounts and IP addresses to edit the article, which is not allowed, and you have not disclosed your own conflict of interest until your most recent post at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. What you should take the time to understand is that I have attempted to provide a neutral position between the two of you - the fact that there has been an alternate claim made has been published in independent sources, which I have included in the article, and the current wording of the article is careful to state that these are claims by the various parties rather than fact. To keep calling this 'libel' and 'defamation' is to not assume good faith on my part. Regarding your comments at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, please read WP:NLT and take care to abide by it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Possible NLT at BLPN". Thank you. --Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zheng (pilot) photo(s)

Hi CTF99. The file you were asking about (as well as some others which were used in Wang Zheng (pilot)) at User talk:Govindaharihari#Wang Zheng (pilot) photo were deleted from Commons by an Commons administrator named c:User:Taivo. The reasons they were deleted can be found at c:User talk:Kigenkigen. Commons and Wikipedia are sister websites, they are intended to serve different roles and thus they both have separate policies and guidelines. Although there is some overlapping between the two projects and many editors edit both, you will need to resolve any issues with files deleted from Commons on Commons.

For reference, a file which is deleted is not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view. The problem with the files had to do with c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. These file were previously published under a license which is not compatible with Commons licensing policy prior to their being uploaded to Comomns, which means Commons is not going to keep them based upon the word of the uploader of the files; instead a more formal email verification is going to be required to verify the copyright holders consent to release the file under a free license Commons accepts. You can find out more about this by asking Taivo on his Commons user talk page. The one thing you shouldn't do is re-upload the files because there's a really good chance they will just end up deleted for the same reason, and the re-upload will be seen as a form of disruption. Ask for Taivo's help and he will advise you on what to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some other things

Now some other things, in your post about the photo on Govindarihari's user talk page, you used the word "ours" to describe the photo. As I mentioned above, these photos were uploaded by an editor named Kigenkigen under a claim of "own work" so it's not clear what you mean by "ours". There've been concerns expressed that some of the editors involved in editing the Wang Zheng article might be using multiple accounts in an inappropriate manner or working together in an inappropriate way when editing the article or discussing anything to do with the article. Any connection between you and any other accounts to Wang Zheng needs to be properly disclosed per WP:DISCLOSECOI; moreover, any connection between you and another Wikipedia account also needs to be disclosed per WP:MULTIPLE. Any attempt to try and subvert or game the process is not going to help you with your concerns about the article, but it will almost certainly lead to your account being blocked by an administrator. The same also applies to Commons as well when it comes to multiple accounts.

You also posted something at BLPN in a response to Melcous about the article being "Wang Zheng's WP page focused on her wonderful flight accomplishment and background", which indicates you might be seriously misundertanding what a Wikipedia article really is. Wang doesn't have a WP page; she has a Wikipedia article written about her. The two might seem equivalent, but there an important difference between the two that's hard sometimes to understand (particularly when you're closely connected to the subject matter). Neither Wang nor anyone associated with her, nor the article's creator, nor any particular editor in general has any claim of ownership or right of final editorial control over the article. Every one who clicks the "Publish changes" is agreeing to wmf:Terms of Use. Anyone can edit the article for better or worse, and although Wikipedia hopes that most of these edits are for the better, there are often disagreements which arise between editors over article content. When that happens, it's consensus which decides what to do based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Wikipedia is also not for making anyone look good or bad, and article content is only intended what can be supported by citations to reliable sources (preferably independent and secondary); in addition, as explained in Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, this means "negative" content can be added to articles if it's done so in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Such content is not going to be removed simply because it's negative any more than positive/promotional content is going to be allowed to be addded just because it's "positive". Again, when there are disagreements over content, they should be resolved through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, not through edit warring, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or anything else which goes against relevant policies and guidelines.

The concerns you posted at BLPN may be valid, but other stuff like undeclared COI/PAID editing, possible sock puppetry/meat puppetry, edit warring over article content is muddying up the waters and causing others to focus more on your behavior and less on figuring out if there really is a BLP problem. You might feel that you're in the right, but eventually what is likely going to happen is that your account is going to end up blocked for one reason or another if you continue to follow such an approach. The best thing you can do at this time is declare any connection you have to subject of the article (including WP:PAID) as well as any other Wikipedia/Commons accounts you may be connected to. Then, you should take a step back and let others not connected to the subject figure out what should or needs to be done and avoid editing the article directly. If there are other editors like EdiK2016 causing disruption, they will be dealt with accordingly by a Wikipedia administrator. Calling for these editors to be banned when you're also creating problems is likely going to boomerang back on you. The legal disputes and other issues that Wang is having with others out in the real world are not going to be resolved via a Wikipedia article. The article may discuss such disputes and their resolution if the consensus is that doing so can be done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but the content will only reflect what reliable sources are saying about the matter. Wikipedia is a volunteer editing project, and there is no professional back-office staff from the Wikimedia Foundation watching over things from afar and ready to step in help resolve disputes. All of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been established over the years through a consensus of this community of volunteers, except where it clearly states otherwise. There are some editors who have been selected by the community to be adminstrators or granted other special tools to keep things running as smoothly as possible, but pretty much all editors are the same. If you feel your concerns are not being properly addressed by this community and want to speak to someone in the Wikimedia Foundation, please refer to Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Contact us for some possible ways to do such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... the page entitled "Wang Zheng (pilot)". I am blocked (unfairly I submit, I will eventually have it reversed)

There is a new entry as of August in the lawsuits section concerning Mr. Frechter, the article subject's husband being accused of fraud in a lawsuit. This is a serious allegation and is wholly unsupported. This entry violates many of the rules applicable to BLP and COI as it is obviously Chen Jingxian Chen or her proxy writing such an entry, and she is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Frechter. The material is contentious and poorly sourced -- it comes from the lawyer for Chen Jingxian in the lawsuit -- and is only being posted to smear Frechter. It should immediately be taken down, as should the entire "lawsuits" section which, as other editors have pointed out, appears to be created by Chen Jingxian or her proxies. CHen herself is conflicted as she is seeking to "depose" Julie Wang from holding the title "first chinese woman to fly around the world." Check the internet. You cannot find anyone challenging Julie Wang's accomplishment. Prior editors, however well-intentioned, have given only lip service to the BLP and COI rules by refusing to apply them to protect Julie Wang and her husband from contentious, scurrilous defamatory charges. Wikipedia is not intended to offer a safe haven for such scurrilous charges that could not otherwise be made without immediate resort to the courts. Please work with other editors to remove that entry and reconsider removal of the entire lawsuits section as violative of Wikipedia policy. PLease be reminded, Julie Wang is only famous for a single event and is not a "well-known person." A much higher level of scrutiny must be applied under Wikipedia's own rules with regard to these charges by Chen Jingxian & her proxies, where Chen herself is conflicted and concealing such conflicts. Thank you.

CTF99 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC) CTF99 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked, the only permitted use of this page is to request to be unblocked. You cannot use it to ask others to perform edits that you cannot. If you wish to make an edit, you must make a successful unblock request. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you.

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).

CTF99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account should be unblocked having stayed away from this for over six months. If I understand "sockpuppetry" correctly, it involves the use of different accounts inappropriately, i.e., to avoid some rule or sanction. CTF99 was never used in that manner and was only changed from Kigenkigen when I lost my password. At the time of the changeover to using CTF99 there were no contentious interactions with any Wikipedia editors. I understand the concerns of engaging in sockpuppetry an will avoid breaking this rule (and other rules). I am also happy to not edit this particular page (Wang Zheng (pilot) directly but at least should be able to leave comments on ht e talk page so that other editors can pick them up or not, allowing the process to work.CTF99 (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC) CTF99 (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an accurate accounting of the situation. This account edited in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Kigenkigen edited in 2016 and 2019. Both accounts edited Wang Zheng (pilot), in 2016 and 2019, in violation of WP:SOCK. On these grounds, I decline your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2019 (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.