User talk:Edipedia

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Edipedia (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on August 23 2006 to Overseas Chinese

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3rr hours. Voice-of-All 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV"

I do not see how my edit in article Han Chinese has been POV. I simply included the fact that minority tribes were around China, which has been an undisputed part of the article for a long time until you removed it. I have explained my edit in my edit summary. See also Wikipedia:POV for an explanation of NPOV. Aran heru nar 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just ridiculous. Would you bother to take some time reading basic Chinese history at all? The term begins in the Han Dynasty. There wasn't "Mongolia", "Russia" and "Korea" at that time. "Han Chinese" is not only a modern term, it is also a historic one. At that time the "Han Chinese" didn't refer to themselves as "Chinese", or "中国人" - they refer to themselves as "Han people", to distinguish from the minority tribes around China, e.g. in the Song dynasty, the Jurchens, the Mongols etc. When the Mongols overran the Song Dynasty, they classified the people into four levels: The Mongols, the Tibetans, the Han, and the "Southerners".Aran heru nar 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's because the term is still in use. "It was during the Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty that the various tribes of China began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group". Surely, this is about the past? Please do not edit the disputed part when the discussion is still going on.Aran heru nar 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Per [2] Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.Aran heru nar 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is clearly described and the diff is given. Please do not troll on my talk page. Feel free to do so in your sandbox; in the meantime, I have more articles to edit. Thank you. Aran heru nar 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chinese

I would suggest you to refrain from editing article Han Chinese because you seem to have a very, very basic understanding of what Han Chinese really is, e.g. this editand this edit. You also seem to misunderstand Wikipedia:POV, seen in these edits: [3] [4] and [5]. You can see that some of these paragraphs are absolutely not POV (some are along the borders, but should not be removed completely). For example, this paragraph: "This also derives from another Chinese dynasty, the Tang dynasty". How is it POV to say that "Tang people" derives from the "Tang dynasty"? That is perfectly accurate and true. I would suggest you to put more effort into learning some basic information before you make these controversial edits and call other editors "silly". See WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. Aran heru nar 05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispution

I must warn you again not to edit during dispution. Even if you are correct it does not justify your actions, and in this case I'm pretty sure you aren't. Editing while in dispution does not help either side. I suggest you to discuss in the talk page instead of deleting large chunks of useful information just because you think they're "weird". Aran heru nar 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Overseas Chinese

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered to be disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. Aran|heru|nar 11:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Han Chinese. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Aran|heru|nar 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning

If it is accepted by other editors, how come you broke the 3RR in less than forty minutes, hmm? Your claim was also invalid because I definitely didn't, well, "accept" it.

I have explained over and over why the term "around" is used, and so have many other editors. I'm not sure I understood you completely this time, but Bill Clinton is not even a Chinese - we just call him an Anglo-Celtic person. The term Han Chinese, as said in the article, is used to distinguish the Han people from other Chinese minorities, and these minorities, usually Chinese, seldom appear outside the Chinese sphere of influence. Aran|heru|nar 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted your warning. I wasn't edit warring, you were. I requested the page for protection, you requested to unprotect it, and then made four edits against consensus to be reverted by two other users. These illegitimate warnings are considered vandalism, and I wish in good faith that you will discuss in a civil and logical manner rather than resorting to tit-for-tatting on user pages. Aran|heru|nar 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Overseas Chinese

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block on Han Chinese

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Note that this is your 4th violation the the three revert rule, so I have blocked you for 48 hours. If you continue to be disruptive, you risk longer or permenant blocks. --Robdurbar 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Edipedia for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Aran|heru|nar 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your imagination. Edipedia 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions again

This is rediculous. You have now violated the three revert rule AGAIN on your own user page. As it is your user page, and the policy is vague over such pages, I will not block you, but I am protecting it. Furthermore, I think that you are pushing very closely to a full ban through your continued disruption. Please consider your actions very carefully if you want to remain on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not juding who is or isnt a sockpuppet. For one thing, the fact that i've already interacted with you means that I'm not in the best position to judge. However, Wikipedia policy and courtsey states that when such accusations are made in good face, users should not hide them by reverting their user page etc., but should face them and debunk them. I'll happily unprotect your user page in a few days, hopefully when this sockpuppet thing has moved on and, depending on the result, you can move the note.

In the meantime, perhaps you could reflect on how your actions up to now have lead people to believe that you would use such tactics.... --Robdurbar 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to User:HongQiGong's userpage

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. Hmrox 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of 3RR

Ha ha, that's a pretty fun one, Edipedia, coming from you. I notice that you and your sockpuppet Yepre have reverted that article five times today.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 times under 2 hours, to be accurate. Aran|heru|nar 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Chinese people

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two week block

Right, that's it. I decided that I would give you a long block if you continued to ignore Wikipedia's rules and ways, and this diff [6], yet another attempt to clear your many warnings from your talk page, was the straw that broke the camel's back. You have continually edit warred, been incivil and very probably been using sockpuppets to circumnavigate the 3RR rule that you have broken a few times.

When your block expires, come back as a different editor - one who doesn't disrupt Wikipedia, but one who helps it. --Robdurbar 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppet Shnnd has been blocked indefinitely

-- Миборо в ский 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppet Ilgn has been blocked indefinitely

-- Миборо в ский 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your use of multiple sockpuppets, your block of 2 weeks has been extended. -- Миборо в ский 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppet User:乾隆龍也 has been blocked indefinitely

--Robdurbar 18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Block renewed

Two more of your sockpuppets have been blocked, and I am renewing your own block.--Konstable 20:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Path to destruction

You seem to be headed for indefinite banning and block on sight for all your alternate accounts. Is this what you want? Or would you like to contribute to the encyclopaedia? If you'd like to contribute what you need to do is to stop creating alternate accounts, and spenda bit of effort on your Talk page convincing people that you intent to be a productive editor. Up to you, really. Guy 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Tiger9.jpg

The file File:Tiger9.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]