User talk:Johnny Shiz

July 2015

Hello, I'm Frosty. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Old School— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Frosty ☃ 02:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7/25/15

FROSTY THE SNOWMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol! Johnny Shiz (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Shiz, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Johnny Shiz!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Johnny Shiz! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:30, Sunday, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Old School. Your edits continue to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Old School was changed by Johnny Shiz (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.969566 on 2015-07-26T23:33:37+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm JJMC89. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Abraham Lincoln— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:JJMC89. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Engrish. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Oh Take me Back

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Oh Take me Back requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bgwhite (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, I'm AngusWOOF. Your recent edit to the page Daniel Middleton appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nazi Germany has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nazi Germany with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 22:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nazi Germany, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Nazi Germany was changed by Johnny Shiz (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.972775 on 2016-03-15T22:26:25+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Screaming goats

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Screaming goats, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry xD

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:38, 15 March 2016 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

it wasn't me it was my brother; he's only 6 whereas I'm 43

Decline reason:

Where have we heard that before? Huon (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2016 (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.

BUT HUON........

On the "brother did it" page, it says it isn't an official policy

Johnny Shiz (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

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).

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

Request reason:

doawk: my brother Abe: my brother's friend Oh take me back: I'm sorry I didn't know how 2 edit then DanTDM: same I didn't know Nazi Germany: my bro not know f bomb, maybe a hacker? Screaming goats: my bro again

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:45, 16 March 2016 (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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm Johnny Shiz's brother. I did prank edit the above pages, and I am sorry for doing it. Please ban me and unban Johnny Shiz.

Decline reason:

We don't do proxy unblock requests, and sockpuppetry doesn't help your cause at all. Huon (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (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.

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

Johnny Shiz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18664 was submitted on Jul 06, 2017 09:05:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I learned my lesson guys

{{unblock|Guys, I am sorry to Yamaguchi and the other mods involved for all the trouble I have caused them. I will never disruptively edit Wikipedia or vandalize Wikipedia ever again. During the time I was blocked, I have took it as a sign that I need to start clean, and so I used Wiktionary to edit. I will mostly edit articles about China now. I hope you can forgive me for this. Also, I promise to stop sockpuppeting forever. It ruins Wikipedia.

I haven't got my previous unblock request reviewed by an admin (too busy to notice), so I'm resending this. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

Still no unblock?

Sigh... I wish for the day that an admin can have mercy on me... Johnny Shiz (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us more about the part when you say I promise to stop sockpuppeting forever? When were you using sockpuppets? Can you name all the accounts you have been using? Also, can you comment your edits on Wiktionary (this and this). How were they useful and sonstructive? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My socks: Johnny Shiz 2, Shizzlecraft1, and WikiCraftW. I haven't used any of those for AT LEAST 6 months. The Wiktionary edits were useful and constructive, in which I re-identified some Chinese characters as variants, rather than separate characters in their own right. Johnny Shiz (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You were originally blocked because of WP:disruptive editing. You should convince us that you (a) understand exactly what was wrong with your edits, (b) will not repeat it in the future. You also allowed your brother to use your account (at least that was posted here). Thus, you violated WP:NOSHARING. Again, you have to convince us that you understand why that is wrong and that you will not repeat it. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

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).

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

Request reason:

I am aware that sockpuppetry and disruptive edits are wrong, and will not be tolerated anywhere on Wikimedia. Sockpuppetry is wrong in this case because it is used to get around my block (block evasion). My disruptive edits are wrong because they constitute vandalism, which ruins the reliability of Wikipedia. I will never do either again. About my brother, it was actually an excuse I made up. I claimed that Johnny Shiz 2 was my brother's account. Even if I did violate Nosharing, I still never broke that rule for at least 6 months. I am so sorry to all the admins involved. While I'm waiting to be unblocked, I will constructively edit Wiktionary. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time, please (I have disabled the other one above). What I'm hearing here is, "I'm willing to make up just about anything, even a fictitious brother, to get unblocked." This makes it decidedly difficult for us to trust anything you say or promise in an a unblock request. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:22, 8 September 2017 (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.

now? Johnny Shiz (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm blocked, guys...

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/308253161406332928/350735511872339971/image.png

You don't understand, Yunshui

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a misunderstanding. When I just got blocked, I made up my "brother" as an excuse for my block. If I had made a confession back then, you probably would have denied it. And I would understand. :But now, times are different. Now, I would never make such an excuse, and I now know better. I have had over a year to think about my situation, and I felt that it would be right to give me a second chance. User: Just Chilling gave me a second chance by giving me edit access to my talk page again here, and I feel you should do the same. Ok?

Decline reason:

Your original block was for disruptive editing and you haven't addressed that at all, all you're doing is making up stories again and again and wasting our time. Your talk page access will be removed once again if this continues.—SpacemanSpiff 03:36, 15 September 2017 (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.

Final warning

You just removed declined unblock requests, any further misuse of this talk page and access will be revoked again. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Sorry about removing them, User:Vanjagenije said "one unblock request at a time" and I misinterpreted his request. Now I know.

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).

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

Request reason:

Guys, I am sorry to Yamaguchi and the other mods involved for all the trouble I have caused them. I will never disruptively edit Wikipedia or vandalize Wikipedia ever again. During the time I was blocked, I have took it as a sign that I need to start clean, and so I used Wiktionary to edit. I will mostly edit articles about China now. I hope you can forgive me for this. Also, I promise to stop sockpuppeting forever. It ruins Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

At this point, in order to regain the trust of the community, I would recommend walking away from Wikipedia for 6 months. That means no edits at all, no unblock requests, no IP editing, and absolutely no socking. If you do this, and after that time has passed you wish to edit again, then create a new unblock request. This is know as our standard offer, and it would show that you were serious about being a positive editor here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2017 (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.

I hereby agree to obey thee yadda yadda yadda

Alright. Just trying to apologize, but if you really insist, I'll wait. But keep in mind, I've already waited more than a year before I got user talk edit access back. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize...

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).

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

Request reason:

I have stepped away from Wikipedia for 6 months, not editing or socking, in order to gain my trust back. Now, I am willing to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. I promise never to vandalize articles ever again. I apologize for wasting the admins' time before. From now on, I will edit Wikipedia constructively rather than disruptively. In addition, I am deeply sorry for evading my blocks by creating sockpuppet accounts, and if this situation occurs again, I will act responsibly by accepting my block and refraining from editing on Wikipedia. In short, I intend to turn over a new leaf by saying yes to constructive editing and actively contributing to Wikipedia, and saying no to disruptive editing, vandalism, ban evasion, and sockpuppetry. Thanks in advance, Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be saying that there is a chance that you will make sockpuppet accounts again("if this situation occurs again"). The only way that would happen is if you went and created one. As long as there is a chance of that happening, you can't be unblocked. You need to clearly state that you will not do the things that got you blocked again, and tell us an example of a constructive edit you would make, using the instructions below. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2018 (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.

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Save.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you.

@331dot:: Excuse me, I think you're misunderstanding me when I said "if this happens again". Of course I'm not gonna create new accounts to evade my block. I'm referring to if I got blocked on this account a second time, and instead of creating sockpuppet accounts like I did, I will respect my block and not edit Wikipedia until I am ready to be a positive contributor. I am very aware that the abuse of multiple accounts is wrong, and I am very certain I will never do it again. Also, thank you for giving me a second chance and letting me show you I am willing to be a good editor.

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.

How do I view source on mobile? Because tapping the edit button just triggers a message about my block.

Try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johnny_Shiz&action=edit&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile. Change the page title in the URL according to the page whose source you want to see. Huon (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Wudang

For centuries, the mountains of Wudang have been known as an important center of Taoism, especially famous for its Taoist versions of martial arts or Taichi.^[1]

The first site of worship—the Five Dragons Temple—was constructed at the behest of Emperor Taizong of Tang.^[2] Further structures were added during the Song and Yuan dynasties, while the largest complex on the mountain was built during the Ming dynasty (14th–17th centuries) as the Yongle Emperor claimed to enjoy the protection of the god Beidi or Xuan Wu.^[2] Temples regularly had to be rebuilt, and not all survived; the oldest existing structures are the Golden Hall and the Ancient Bronze Shrine, made in 1307.^[2] Other noted structures include Nanyang Palace (built in 1285–1310 and extended in 1312), the stonewalled Forbidden City at the peak (built in 1419), and the Purple Cloud Temple (built in 1119–1126, rebuilt in 1413 and extended in 1803–1820).^[2]

By the time of the reign of the Yongle Emperor (1403-1425 AD) during the Ming Dynasty, there were eight palaces, two Taoist temples, 36 nunneries, and 72 rock temples on the mountain. ^[3]

The monasteries such as the Wudang Garden^[4] were made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1994.^[2]

On January 19, 2003, the 600-year-old Yuzhengong Palace at the Wudang Mountains was accidentally burned down by an employee of a martial arts school.^[5] A fire broke out in the hall, reducing the three rooms that covered 200 square meters to ashes. A gold-plated statue of Zhang Sanfeng, which was usually housed in Yuzhengong, was moved to another building just before the fire, and so escaped destruction in the inferno.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Wang, Fang (May 11, 2004). "Pilgrimage to Wudang". Beijing Today. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains
^ Common Knowledge about Chinese Geography. (2007). Hong Kong: The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council.
^ http://www.wudanglife.com/index.php?route=info&id=2
^ "China's world heritage sites over-exploited". China Daily. December 22, 2006. Retrieved 2008-04-19.

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).

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

Request reason:

First off, I would like to prevent any misunderstandings by clearly stating that I will no longer create sockpuppet accounts and use them for abusive purposes. I have tried it before, they all got blocked, it doesn't work. And as such, I will never do it again. I will also avoid disruptive editing and vandalism, as it is harmful to Wikipedia. On a more positive side, I intend to be a constructive editor, mostly to articles about China and the Chinese language. An example of a constructive edit I will make is shown above. In addition, I will continue to edit Wiktionary as usual. Thanks, Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2018 (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 edit consists of adding the paragraph "By the time of the reign of the Yongle Emperor...". I have tried my best to find the cited source. For all I can tell, there is no 2001 edition of Common Knowledge about Chinese Geography, only a 2007 one. Huon (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Oops... The 2001 was a typo, I meant 2007. Fixed it. Johnny Shiz (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

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.

I have lots of good ideas for constructive edits. Am I allowed to post more than one to my talk page? Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to proxy edit, so if you're going to request edits on your TP, no. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Thanks. Also why did you get rid of my unblock requests earlier? Johnny Shiz (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly an accident while trying to remove the nonsense you'd posted in the test section. I fixed it. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:50, 27 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and now I hereby promise that from now on, I will never disruptively edit or vandalize Wikipedia. In addition, I will also avoid using alternate accounts (sockpuppets) for abusive purposes. Both of these are wrong, and as a result for doing them, I got blocked. After all the time I spent trying to get unblocked, I learned my lesson. Instead, I intend to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. The articles I will edit most are articles about China, since that is a topic I am very familiar with. An example of a constructive edit I intend to make is shown above. Thanks in advance, Johnny Shiz (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is substantially identical to the previous unblock request you made. That unblock request failed to convince anyone, so there's no reason to believe a substantially identical one will be successful. You are welcome to make a substantially different unblock request, however. Yamla (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2018 (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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

The original reason for my block was because of my disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is incorrect because it ruins the Reliability of Wikipedia. From the time I got blocked to now, I have changed a lot, have been through a lot of lessons, and came to learn that my editing behavior on Wikipedia before I got blocked was not tolerable by Wikipedia. I have familiarized myself with all the rules. I am now aware as to what is right and what is wrong. I appreciate the concerns of the Wikipedia administrators, and I admit that my inappropriate editing behavior really did justify my block. Therefore, from now on, I will edit Wikipedia articles constructively instead of disruptively. I am going to work very hard to improve articles, not vandalize them. My knowledge on several topics, like China and the Chinese language, will be helpful when editing articles related to them. I will turn over a new leaf. I would also like to address my sockpuppetry. After I got blocked, I created other accounts (User talk:Johnny Shiz 2, User:Shizzlecraft1, User talk:WikiCraftW) in order to continue with my disruptive editing. They all got blocked too. This has taught me a valuable lesson, that I should never evade blocks by creating other accounts. It will not work. A better choice would be to stick to my main account and request unblocks there. As such, I will avoid abusing sockpuppet accounts. To conclude, I would like to thank the administrators of Wikipedia for working hard to make sure Wikipedia is a safe place to edit, and making sure vandals and disruptive editors are punished accordingly. I now am very willing to obey the administrators. If they would like me to remain blocked, I will remain blocked. If they would like me to be unblocked, I will be a constructive editor. I can take criticism. Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not convinced you have changed. The way you have been using your talk page while blocked is worrying, asking questions about formats etc. 5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2018 (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.

Help Part 2

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.

Does Wikipedia support WPA or MLA citations? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOS. 10^Eleventeen 22:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So you can use both, huh? Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

(To admins) If you allow me to edit again, should I edit on this account, or should I use Wikipedia:Clean start and create another account? Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably stick to this account. 10^Eleventeen 22:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I want to create an archive for my previous talk page posts, but I can't do that until I'm unblocked, right? Or is it somehow possible for someone else to create a talk page archive for me on my behalf? Johnny Shiz (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. See WP:OWNTALK - you cannot remove the declined unblock templates until you are unblocked. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

But what if I get unblocked, and I create an archive myself? WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED say that I can't remove declined unblocks and speedy deletion tags. But in my case, all of these situations would be resolved when I get unblocked. Do those guidelines only apply to active unblock and speedy deletion situations, or am I prohibited from removing them even if they are resolved? Does placing them in a talk page archive count as removing from the talk page? Talk page archives are probably considered part of the talk page, as long as the archive name is in the form "User:Username/Archive x", right? I'm confused. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once unblocked, you can do whatever you'd like with the notices. Archive them, remove them to history, etc. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - as you aren't using your talkpage for discussing your block / requesting proxy edits, I have revoked your access to edit it. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Please stop with the help me templates. You've been told how to appeal your block and no one is going to edit for you as that would be WP:PROXYING, no matter how well intended. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johnny Shiz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21753 was submitted on Jun 07, 2018 21:21:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

Johnny Shiz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21766 was submitted on Jun 08, 2018 19:40:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding future UTRS appeals: note socking socking.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Wang-1] Wang, Fang (May 11, 2004). "Pilgrimage to Wudang". Beijing Today. Retrieved 2008-04-19.

[unesco-2] Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains

[3] Common Knowledge about Chinese Geography. (2007). Hong Kong: The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council.

[4] ttp://www.wudanglife.com/index.php?route=info&id=2

[5] "China's world heritage sites over-exploited". China Daily. December 22, 2006. Retrieved 2008-04-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]