User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

May 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

not an attack page.

How was my user page an attack page in any way? How did I threaten or even dislike Donald Trump in any way? I wrote the explanation that It's based on an inside joke, but deleting non-threatening account pages and then THREATENING me with blocking is kind of ironic. Donald Trung (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

in It's entirety:

"G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose

Shortcut: WP:G10 Main page: Wikipedia:Attack page Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL."

There is not a single thing on this list that my account page could've been considered guilty of, it didn't attack him, I don't even hate Donald Trump, I literally stayed at one of his hotels once, and my friends joke that I'm his cousin because our names sound so similar (I live and work in Australia and adopted the name "Donald" back in 1992 and I've been joked about being related to Donald Trump a couple of years after. It's like saying that if your name is King, and you joke about being a relative of Stephen King that your threatening Stephen King, how is that rational in anyone's mind? Donald Trung (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In case Mr. delete-happy will censor me again. Donald Trung (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trung, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Donald Trung! 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 Missvain (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What inspired Larry Sanger to make Wikipedia?

It is a bit stretching the facts according to Larry Sanger's NPOV to even call Jimbo the co-founder. Wales did not create Wikipedia and he was busy with other projects including Bomis. Wales was in the background and very hands-off. The only reason he is called the co-founder because he spoke to the media about Wikipedia. He was the public face of Wikipedia. Bomis paid for it not Wales. Bomis was founded by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, Michael Davis, and Tim Shell. They contributed to paying for Nupedia and Wikipedia. Larry Sanger is also the co-founder of Nupedia. The idea that anyone can edit Wikpedia was not even Wales' idea. Sanger took a blank canvas and created the most critical policies editors continue to cite. Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, Michael Davis, and Tim Shell lost potential billions for not knowing how to profit from Wikipedia. Wales' idea was to make money from an online encyclopedia called Nupedia. We are here today because Bomis failed to turn a profit and because Sanger created and pushed the policies that made Wikipedia possible. Larry Sanger created Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ryukyuan mon

Hello! Thank you for writing Ryukyuan mon. I've recently edited it to fix grammar and wiki markup. What got you interested in the subject, if I may ask? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you crop this image?

A Xuān Tǒng Tōng Bǎo (宣統通寶) coin, the last cast cash coinage produced by the Qing dynasty.

@Donald Trung: I want to use this image in Qing dynasty coinage for the list, but it should be cropped. --1.55.180.128 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for doing the work.

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For creating Yuan dynasty coinage. Sunshine Alexi (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Old warning templates from IP user account 58.187.168.230 =

I'm archiving these here for later reference and to addres them.

Content

Welcome to my talk page. --58.187.168.230 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 😉

Friendly request.

Hi, thanks for your work here. But please stop adding rows of symbols to the edit summaries, it makes things a little difficult to read and judge. Thank you, Yintan  15:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Control copyright icon Hello 58.187.168.230, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Korean mun have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

June 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ming dynasty coinage has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ming dynasty coinage was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://hau burn.tripod.com/MRebels.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.

My response to the above

@what was written by Yintan, I shall never stop using emoji’s, NEVER. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

The first one was something I had contested, after which I had reinserted the content completely re-worded as I thought that I had re-phrased enough before, no copyright strike has been issued since and this particular issue I had noted on my user talk page at User:Donald Trung so at this time no accusation of sockpuppetry could've been accurately founded.

The supposed spam issue was manually checked by the operator of the bot and the links were allowed to stay in the article, this was an error on the side of the bot, not me. This is also an issue I had addressed on my user page.

Test to see if the bot is working properly.

@Donald Trung: I signed out to see if my notifications work properly too. --2405:4800:1484:92D8:30D4:7D52:FD13:5179 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to see if it also archives images properly.

Test image.

@Donald Trung: Does the bot 🤖 work? --2405:4800:1484:92D8:30D4:7D52:FD13:5179 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Donald Trung (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

This is my main account and I would like to request an unblock I fully understand that my actions were wrong and hope that I can return to exclusively make only positive contributions to Wikipedia from now on, I made those socks when I was angry but have learned that it was wrong, ignore my other pleads at the Ivory Cowboy as this is my main account, if you want to block account creation from me I definitely I will understand but I will not make any disruptive edits and will take full responsibility nor have I abused any other accounts to "vote" twice, I hope that the admin reviewing this will listen to my plea I am not requesting to have account creation reinstated only to be able to edit articles and if you all feel that I had abused multiple accounts I will not make any other accounts and will always sign in when I edit even if my device signs me out automatically.
Yes this is my real name and I am committing to improving. Again I am not requesting for an unblock of any other account other than this one and you may keep the restrictions on account creation in place, I will not make any disruptive edits in the future and you may permanently block me I indefinitely if otherwise. I fully understand what that means and I will not attempt to make other accounts checkusers may follow me persistsntly if they believe otherwise. You can create a sock puppet category and the usual but please allow me to improve the articles on Chinese coins and allow me to create new articles, that's all I'm asking nothing more I literally stopped socking the day before I got caught, I would even put "This user has previously been blocked due to sockpuppeteering" in my signature, just please allow me to improve articles as all Wikipedia is about is the readers and I really only care about making the most complete articles with good sources and relevant information. Please decline the request at The Ivory Cowboy and at please don't nuke me the articles I had created are all well-sourced and it would be a disservice to the readers to delete then. Also please don't blank my user page.
If it is deemed necessary I would change my signature to “Donald Trung (talk) (socks)” and openly disclose that those were my socks, please create a category so that could link there, but all I beg is to be continued to allow to improve articles I shall not insult any other user again (even if they would insult me first), you may leave the restriction on account creation on, and permanently remove autoconfirmed, but please allow me to continue improving articles and to continue uploading good educational pictures to Wikimedia Commons. I got upset because of a reversion of another user and he couldn't understand that on a mobile device it’s simply harder to edit articles, but I take full responsibility for the bad actions I took and I do not wish to have any privileges restored other than to improve this great encyclopedia by helping it meet standards.
If you really have trouble trusting me than globally block me except for on Dutch Wikipedia anD Wikimedia Commons, let me prove that I only want to improve this site and then appeal again. But from this point onwards I shall only focus on improving articles and as an Inclusionist you can't prevent me from trying to save articles from deletion it's simply what I do. But I will not break WP:CIVIL again.
the reason I am asking this now is because I have already drafted a few articles for creation but as I am blocked I can't check the source code and take references. I have changed my signature to this Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Socks 🎭) 02:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) just please allow me to improve Wikipedia, and related projects.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2017 (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.

After seeing several unblock requests from your accounts and IPs today which were frivolous, I'll be revoking your talk page access for any unblock appeals that you make for the next several months. In six months, you can try again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous unblock requests today which were frivolous

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Donald Trung (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18891 was submitted on Aug 02, 2017 05:57:59. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Donald Trung (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18901 was submitted on Aug 02, 2017 22:49:26. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Donald Trung (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18906 was submitted on Aug 03, 2017 14:58:22. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of blocked editor

@DoRD: I would like to request that you unblock my IP range, no one else should have to suffer because of my actions, and if I really had wished to evade this block I would simply remove the cookie-block and edit from any other spot as their are open wifi 📶 spots a mere 2 minutes away from here. Please don’t let anyone else be prevented from improving Wikipedia because of what I did. If you really think that I a lying then you can monitor this range for recent changes and would note that none would come from my device.

(After email to ArbCom, Drmies (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

  • DoRD, this is entirely up to you, since you're the expert; I reposted this request (the editor was asking for TPA to be restored) thinking it is an easy-enough question to answer. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I restored TPA on the one range I blocked, but if they're talking about TPA for this account, it won't do any good because they're globally locked. I had another look at the range, and out of about forty accounts and anons to use it in the last couple of weeks, only six were not this user. Unless someone else contests the block, I think I'll leave it in place for the remaining ten days. ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you DoRD--I have no dog in this fight, I was only passing on a request. I appreciate your time and effort, as always. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

TPA restored

Donald Trung requested unblocking on IRC, and since he seems to be getting on well on Commons, I offered to restore talk page access here for a Standard offer unblock request. Per this agreement, talk page access has been restored. Donald Trung may request the Standard offer no sooner than February 2. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: As it's February 2 today, may I appeal my block? And could you please lay forth the conditions you wish to impose on me before I am allowed to improve Wikipedia again? --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 09:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 Unblock request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Donald Trung (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I made several accounts with disruptive usernames insulting (other) participants of this project, at the time I wasn't aware of any dispute resolution processes and where and how to solve a dispute between users so I made a series of irrational mistakes insulting a user I had a conflict with. If I am allowed to return I would like to improve articles again and I haven't read this Wikipedia for the duration of my block so I won't be tempted to evade it as my OCD would probably force me to improve grammatical errors, template errors, Etc. Which would then get reverted and waste everyone's time so I would rather attempt to discuss an unblock so I can read this project again, I do not plan to become active here as I've always seen myself first and foremost as a "Wikimedia Commons-user" but I want to be able to regularly add images of subjects I cover on that project, and I have already drafted some expanses of several articles here, plus if I ever want to be an active user on the Simple English Wikipedia my block here could get me sanctioned in the same way per "the one strike rule" so I have ulterior motives to request this unblock. If I ever find myself upset with another user I will bring the dispute to the appropriate channels for discussion and will not insult them in any way. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 09:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

per discussion on this page. welcome back -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits here are from a very different location than where you were in August. Are you using a VPN or other proxy? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@DoRD: Nope, just a different physical location. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Unblock with conditions

After a discussion between myself and Berean Hunter, we will not object to unblocking if Donald Trung agrees to these conditions:

  • User is indefinitely restricted to one account (User:Donald Trung)
  • User may not use emojis or other non-script symbols in edit summaries or non-talk pages
  • User must read and abide by the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, BH and DoRD. Well, Donald Trung, what say ye? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I accept those conditions, and I've already read those policy pages but I will read them again now. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 10:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: pinging for notification. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 11:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 13:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

S.O.

@Berean Hunter and DoRD: Hello I'm inclined to accept the unblock, but need input first. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, BH and I are discussing it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim, please see my edit above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

New Emoji's on my user page

@DoRD: Can I also add (new) emoji's on my user page? I don't really see how disruptive or irritating that can be. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 14:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 14:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you may use emojis in your own userspace. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblock conditions

Hi User:DoRD, this accounts sig seemed a bit unusual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology) [1]. Does the emoji unblock condition include the sig, and are those emoji or characters not considered emoji? Widefox; talk 02:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(Widefox, the ping didn't work for some reason, but someone else brought the sig to my attention as well.)
Donald, please revert your signature to something simple, i.e. no emojis, no links to the SPI, and no crosswiki links. After your recent disruption on Meta, and your history here, I'd try to play it safe if I were you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@DoRD: Not sure why emoji's are bad, and the cross-wiki link is also to a list of articles on the English Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 21:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Also I thought that using emoji's on talk pages was still allowed as a deletion request is still a talk page, and I haven't used any emoji's in a single article (or ever did that) or in an edit summary. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 21:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Widefox: No it does not. Thanks, 06:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC) -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Hi Donald Trung, please remember to use an edit summary on all edits, regards Widefox; talk 02:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: Edit summaries aren't needed for every edit, and I always explain non-minor edite. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 21:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Read the standard template above (clue - I didn't write it). Your dispute is therefore with the guideline, not me, so don't ping or post on my talk again.
User:DoRD did the ping work this time? FYI, I specifically wanted this editor to use edit summaries on all edits as I got the impression they needed scrutiny, and after seeing them for the first time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology), they're now annoying me [2] on my talk, pinging me here, and it's quite a coincidence that they turned up at a second AfD that I've been at [3] when that's the only 2 AfDs they been to in 9 months. The sig is fixed, but there's a bat emoji at the top of this edit page. Widefox; talk 22:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. How did you arrive at this editors talk page User talk:Hkh91Sb ? Don't you think it's creepy to follow someone else around? If I see you on any page I'm editing in the next while, I will report and get you blocked. Is that clear? Widefox; talk 00:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: looks like this editor is breaking through the thin ice of their unblock conditions. This editor is now unambiguously following around my edit history. [4] which I posted here, before going back to complete the COI tag [5] Widefox; talk 01:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: Seems to me a bit hypocritical to react so strongly over a ping and an innocuous question on your talk page, while you've been posting multiple warning templates on this user's talk page for such little things as the user's signature? -Zanhe (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I've had no prior interaction with Donald Trung. I just noticed several nice articles he wrote and stopped by here to thank him. -Zanhe (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Zanhe you seem to have correctly guessed I was going to ask you what is your connection with this editor, or their unblock conditions which you don't seem to be aware of... so what are you talking about? You are the one who has waded in all guns firing not knowing the info it seems...When you say "hypocritical", you will need to spell it out as I don't know what you mean? At least one diff would suffice. You may not be aware I posted my message here before completing the templating of the COI account User:Hkh91Sb which had a welcome by Donald Trung.
Donald Trung, how do you explain your recent editing overlap with mine - editing those articles/AfD/welcoming that editor? Widefox; talk 01:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: sorry, the multi-way unblock conversation confused me which admin unblocked. Widefox; talk 01:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Widefox:OMG. I unblocked per the now apparently archived discussion. Have problems resumed? May need to go through and reping others. I'm at work and it may take time to dig through the archives and see what went on. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Widefox: How am I harassing you? I checked to see if you had reverted one of my recent edits to Vietnamese cash or something as you left that template about edit summaries here but gave no explanation, then I found that you participated in a conversation about a subject I'm interested in and simply welcomed another user (I hate redlinks, and if the first template a user sees is a welcome message and not a warning message they'll think more highly of Wikipedia), and asking you to explain why you template me isn't "harassment", pinging (un)blocking admins with a request to block someone simply because you don't like them probably comes closer to that then welcoming new editors. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 05:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Widefox: Well, as long as I'm back on this page and since you paged me, I too would like to know more about harassment. I just do not see it. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
And before this gets out of hand, maybe you two should avoid each other. If one has edited a page, the other should think long and hard about editing the same page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: If you don't mind, could you please set your preferences to remind you to include at edit summary. It does reduce confusion and help avoid misunderstanding. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I already explain almost every edit I make, and only don't leave edit summaries for minor uncontroversial edits, the double standard here seems to be that Widefox can check my contributions out but according to them checking theirs out is "harassment" and I would rather talk things out with them like adults than just avoid them as that doesn't sound exactly like collegial behaviour. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For reference see the edits of February 10th here, all major changes have edit summaries, and I'm sure people can agree that minor edits don't need to have edit summaries that take ten times (10x) as long as the edits themselves. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Yeah. From what I could tell, you are doing fine. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is about Widefox harassing Donald Trung and trying to get him re-blocked for the "offense" of voting against him in two AFDs. This is really vindictive behaviour in my opinion. -Zanhe (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's not reignite that fire, please. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Not trying to ignite any fire. Just don't like WP:BULLYs. -Zanhe (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: please explain "FYI, I specifically wanted this editor to use edit summaries on all edits as I got the impression they needed scrutiny" as you yourself do not use edit summaries on all of your edits and all edits on Wikipedia are already open to scrutiny, you seem to want to impose a sanction with no clear motivation given and please use diff's to some questionable edits I have allegedly made prior to you placing the template on my talk page. The guideline for edit summaries doesn't state that users have to make them for every edit so you should at least explain your motivations and no asking questions and calling scrutiny upon your edits is not "harassment". --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 07:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, if any scrutiny is required, I'll be the one doing it. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the whole deal with Wikimedia projects should be that any idea and anyone should be able to be called into question, I have no issue with anyone scrutinising my edits but I don't see how putting edit summaries on every minor edit I do helps with that. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 07:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to skim over user page templates and just saw "Don't you think it's creepy to follow someone else around? If I see you on any page I'm editing in the next while, I will report and get you blocked. Is that clear?", this is a clear threat and an ad hominem, users are allowed to check the contributions of other editors to scrutinize them, and the fact that you find that a blockable offence makes me glad that you're not an administrator. I thought 💭 that conversation was possible with you but if you can only write in threats and insults I would request of you to stay away from my talk page as well. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles)

I looked over your edits quickly and saw you have been quite busy. I also did not see any problem edits. As I unblocked you, I would feel embarrassed if it turned out I was wrong. So far, not embarrassed. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that, but I would still like to get an answer as to why I got templated to use more edit summaries by the person who left the template on my talk page, I would rather not be in a dispute with any other editor and hope that they could explain their actions as the discussion here concerns my recent edits needing more scrutiny (according to Widefox) and not my previous block as I have already removed the emoji's from my signature. If I can't find a resolution with Widefox then I will leave them to their own devices but knowing why they would request me to use more edit summaries could help me self-police more. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 08:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars has stuck in my mind over the years. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: care to comment on your behaviour so we can discuss an end to this conflict? Otherwise I will archive these discussions as resolved. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 11:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Bringing unblock conditions to present iteration of talk.

  • User is indefinitely restricted to one account (User:Donald Trung)
  • User may not use emojis or other non-script symbols in edit summaries or non-talk pages
  • User must read and abide by the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I did not break any of those conditions so why are you re-posting them here? I simply asked Widefox why they left a template on my user page with absolutely no other information and they responded with a threat of blocking me and no explanation. How was I hounding them? Because I participated in a deletion request they were participating in? I always participate in deletion requests and I was about to get to some discussions, I don't see how this is against any rule, and in case no uninvolved party has seen this but I seem to be the one trying to discuss matters here, Widefox leaves templates with no explanation and threats of blocking. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
So that we know. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #299