User talk:Master-Of-America

June 2018

Hello, I'm Zingarese. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Clark Shao— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Zingarese (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Clark Shao. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Zingarese (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master-Of-America, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Master-Of-America! 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 Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Chang (fitness trainer)

Please read Bold, Revert, Discuss which describes the usual order of business here in short terms. You want something changed, I reverted it, and now we discuss in on the talk page. The onus is on you to gain consensus for the proposed change. Please do not use the edit summary to discuss things and please assume good faith. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Chang (fitness trainer). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I suggest reading Wikipedia:What vandalism is not before further accusing your fellow editors of vandalism. Zingarese (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zingarese, First of all, you don't even practice what you preach, because you said to "assume good faith in dealings with other editors", yet you turn around and accuse me of being "disruptive". That's not "good faith" from you. Your double standard is thus clearly hypocrisy. Secondly, my dealings with kleuske were in good faith until his transparent lack of good faith proved otherwise. Any intelligent person reading his rationale for editing Mike Chang's page could see that it was intentional nonsense used to actually be disruptive, unless one were to assume that kleuske is actually mentally retarded. So, is that the implied assumption that you want to make about kleuske? The fact that I did not assume that he was mentally retarded, but only being intentionally disruptive, proves that I did not treat him in any condescending way.Master-Of-America (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mike Chang (fitness trainer). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring across multiple articles to add or restore disputed content to biographies. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 5 July 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).

Master-Of-America (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My case is mistakenly treated as "edit warring", because I was merely trying to prevent vandalism to a page from people, including Kleuske and Zingarese, who provided no verifiable evidence to support their claims and therefore were solely trying to present their personal biases as fact and delete my referenced links in repeatedly attempting to censor the verifiable content that I was adding to Mike Chang's page. On the other hand, each time when I reverted their edits, I provided verifiable reference showing my edits to be factual. The funny thing is, Zingarese was the one who had been stressing that anything posted on Wikipedia ought to have verifiable reference. So, it's both ridiculous and hypocritical that Zingarese then accused me of "not dealing in good faith" and being "disruptive" because Zingarese was the one who appeared to be colluding with Kleuske in being disruptive to Mike Chang's page, all without providing any verifiable reference to support their edits. Further, by accusing me of being "disruptive", all while contradicting the fact that I was the one who tried to protect basic biographical information from being continually deleted by Kleuske and Zingarese in Mike Chang's biography, Zingarese has shown that he had no qualms about abusing his privileges as a veteran editor in order to push his personal agenda along with Kleuske, while paying two-faced lip service to "verifiable content" on Wikipedia, despite neither of them ever bothering to show any verifiable reference or evidence to support their repeated deletions of basic biographical fact from the page in question. If one cannot see the apparent two-faced malice behind the contradiction between Zingarese's words and conduct as well as Kleuske's dogged intent to disrupt the addition of verifiable biographical information on Mike Chang's page, then shame on the Wikipedia organization for selectively allowing certain people to continually abuse Wikipedia at the expense of someone who is trying to do the right thing. Master-Of-America (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request largely deals with the behavior of others and not your own. As only you can control your behavior, your request should largely address what you did that led to the block. That said, you clearly edit warred, and being correct(if you are) is not a defense to edit warring. Your edits do not fall under the vandalism exception to edit warring. As you don't concede that you did anything wrong, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 6 July 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.

In response to your recent comments

I am sorry you are frustrated, but on Wikipedia, all content must be verifiable. The burden to prove verifiability to any content added to articles is on the user adding the content; in this case, you. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it are either tagged with {{Citation needed}}, or removed; if removed, it should never be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. In the cases of biographies of living people, contentious information that is unsourced or poorly sourced is required by policy to be removed immediately. Accusing your fellow editors of racism and being mentally retarded, especially when they explained courteously and clearly why your edits were required by policy to be undone, is extremely offensive and gets no one anywhere. I asked you repeatedly to back up your statements with reliable sources; it is not optional, and deliberately failing to do so is wholly disruptive. Before continuing to edit here, I strongly advise you to read all of the policies and guidelines that were mentioned to you, and understand that you must treat your fellow editors with respect and civility, because my only wish is for you to be a constructive member of the community, and not to have sanctions thrown at you. If you have any questions, please let me know, and I will help you out. Regards, Zingarese (talk) 21:06, 6 July 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).

Master-Of-America (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Zingarese I am sorry you feel extremely offended by my calling out of your actual disrespectful, uncivil, and false accusations against me despite the "edit history" on Mike Chang's page clearly showing that, among all the editors who edited the page in the past week, I was the only editor who provided verifiable content with reliable sources to support my information every time. You must understand that simply making innuendos about me not backing up my statements with "reliable sources" on Mike Chang's page, despite evidence in the edit history to the contrary, does not make your insinuations true. Is that why you did not even dare to come out and just say that I actually "did not" back up my statements with reliable sources on Mike Chang's page? In your reply here, your false accusations and insinuations not only failed to demonstrate anything genuine, but also are disrespectful and extremely offensive which gets no one anywhere. I strongly advise you to quit throwing blatantly false accusations against another editor and cease paying dishonest lip service to "policy" by disingenuously stating that "Any material lacking a reliable source" or "contentious information that is unsourced or poorly sourced is required by policy to be removed immediately" here, because you have been deliberately ignoring the fact that the other editors have been changing the page to a version that contains no "citation" or "source" for "Taipei, Taiwan", whatsoever, all while selectively suppressing only my well-sourced information for "Taipei, Taiwan, China" and admittedly also stating your intent to continue abusing your privileges here by throwing more of such sanctions at me. Since you admitted that "it is not optional" to back up statements with reliable sources, then why have you condoned the other editors' repeated violations of Wikipedia's "policy" by allowing them to edit the page back to the unsourced version while you and the others together have tried to selectively censor my well-sourced version? How do you explain these gaping discrepancies between your appeals to lofty principles in the "policy" and your aiding and abetting of violations of same policy by those other editors against me, while falsely accusing me of the same, despite evidence to the contrary? Further, you also falsely claimed here, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that other editors explained "clearly why my edits were required by policy to be undone." Then, why couldn't you point out such a clear "explanation"? The one by Kleuske obviously failed to refute anything because my source clearly stated that Taiwan "is" a part of China, where "is" indicates present-tense. Therefore, for him to allege that the meaning of "China" is misleading because it can pertain to the "Qin Dynasty" or the country of "1949" was obviously and ridiculously irrelevant. Are you not able to see that, or just pretending? So, if you meant that such a piece of logically incoherent drivel had constituted a "clear" explanation of why my edits were "required by policy to be undone", then you could only have been condoning his disruptive behavior and treating me with disrespect and uncivility intentionally. All in all, it was your own verifiable two-faced conducts and hypocritical words here that have raised legitimate questions about the ulterior motives behind your biased actions which are in fact disruptive and disrespectful. Before you continue to lecture anyone on treating "fellow editors with respect and civility", you should first learn how to become a decent person, because the way that you have applied the double-standard regarding Mike Chang's page only to me, while simultaneously lying about what I did, certainly proves that you are far from becoming a constructive member of humanity, let alone of this tiny community. My only wish is for you to reflect on your own prejudices, biases, and despicable behavior so far, because I don't want to have to expose yourself and your lies again. But if you have any questions, please let me know, and I can help you out. No, really.

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. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:44, 7 July 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.

Master-Of-America (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Of course I would not concede that I did anything wrong, because it is your mistake to decline to unblock me. And of course I had to point out the conduct of others in my first unblock request, because it was their lies and collusion that caused the block. And you're obviously in the same boat with them. So don't continue to insult your own character by trying to insinuate that I did anything wrong while condoning the abuses of Wikipedia policy by the others. Since you just admitted that you can only control your own behavior, then you should reflect upon and concede your own mistake of continuing to block me.Master-Of-America (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Further, it should be obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense that it takes two sides to "edit war". So if I'm sanctioned for "edit warring", then the other side should be sanctioned as well. The fact that you only sanctioned me while intentionally ignoring their conduct, despite my attempt to bring attention to those in my first unblock request, proves that you are the one violating Wikipedia's policy and abusing your privileges in this tiny community.Master-Of-America (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an unblock request. Please only use {{unblock}} to request unblock. Zingarese (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shut the fuck up! Master-Of-America (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zingarese talk · contribs 03:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments in your latest unblock request

In the case of Mike Chang, I was uninvolved except for my undoing of your first edit. My comments above were specifically referring to Clark Shao; you continued to refer his nationality as "Chinese" even though the article and its sources made it clear he was born in the United States; even if he is ethnically Chinese, he was not a national of the PRC. I asked you to provide reliable sources, and you failed to do so. Per policy, your adding of "Chinese" in the lead is known as a deliberate factual error and is to be immediately removed, and not re-added unless a reliable source is cited. Now, back to Mike Chang: You later redid your edit with a source to the US Department of State page regaring US-Taiwan relations and the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (albeit slightly taken out of context), and I never touched the page after that. However, provided editors have a valid disagreement, they are allowed to undo your edits, which is what happened. If they do so, that is when Wikipedia:Dispute resolution kicks in. You take the matter to the talk page, and have a constructive conversation to try to settle your differences with each other. If talk page discussion proves unsuccessful to solve the dispute, a Wikipedia:Requests for comment may be opened. This is all explained on WP:BRD, which has been mentioned to you multiple times, including on your talk page. You were also informed, twice, that you were engaging in Wikipedia:Edit warring, that there is a three-revert-rule that states editors must not make more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, and what you should do instead of edit warring. You were blocked for edit warring, and if you wish to be unblocked early, you must state what you did that caused the block, and how would you conduct yourself as to not repeat the same mistake. Again, if you have questions about what has been explained to you, don't hesitate to ask me, but please understand no editor is obliged to respond to personal attacks or waste their time reiterating concepts that you refuse to acknowledge. Regards, Zingarese (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your last comment

@Zingarese The hypocrisy of your disingenuous response is both laughable and appalling. You claim to have informed me twice that I was "edit warring", but pretends to be oblivious to the simplest fact that it takes more than one person to engage in edit warring. Isn't that obvious? Extremely obvious? So, you made absolutely no sense whatsoever in selectively blocking me but not the other person(s) who also violated the "three-revert-rule" when they had made more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period while engaging in Wikipedia:edit warring against me. In fact, you had never even so much as informed the other side that they were also engaging in edit warring, in the same way that you admittedly had done against me "twice". Equally nonsensical is your behavior of asking me to state what I had done to cause you to block me. Since you needed me to tell you about it, then it logically shows that you know of no valid reason to block me. Admittedly, since you still don't even know why you're blocking me, then what competence have you shown that qualifies you to have and deserve such privileges? Lacking any evidence to the contrary in your conduct, all that you have shown is your abuse of editing and blocking privileges in letting your personal bias and prejudice overtake your obligation to be impartial. That's a transgression unbefitting your position as editor. Rather than asking me to tell you how I would conduct myself so as to not repeat the so-called "same mistake", you must state how you would conduct yourself in the future so as to not repeat your same mistake of selectively persecuting me only because your opinion disagreed with my stance on a particular issue relating to the content of a page. Furthermore, the fact that Clark Shao is Chinese need not indicate his nationality as a citizen of the PRC or anywhere else, but is still important because ethnicity is customarily included as a fundamental part of any biography both on Wikipedia and everywhere else. So, it is you who distorted the context of mentioning his Chinese identity. You need to understand that I certainly don't need you to reiterate the concepts which are irrelevant and unnecessary to be mentioned in the context of my contention against your opinion, and that you must figure out for yourself the most basic concepts in reading comprehension and logical reasoning instead of asking me to reiterate and spell them out for you every time.Master-Of-America (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? Zingarese talk · contribs 19:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to read. Master-Of-America (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're hilarious. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Clark Shao, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.

From the comments above, this is something you should be very well aware of by now, in particular as regards this specific claim in this specific article. The sourcing in that article is pretty atrocious in general, so it would be more constructive for you to work on improving that. bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert content, as you just did at Clark Shao, without citing any reliable source to support your reversion and thus engaging in edit warring. This is your first reversion in this specific article. According to the "three-revert-rule", you would be committing edit warring violation if you were to revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. From your own comment and others here, this is something you should be very aware of by now as a matter of practicing what you preach.Master-Of-America (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Clark Shao.

Wikipedia is not a playground. If you are interested in improving the article there's plenty of scope to do that. You have been blocked for this before so you know exactly what is required. bonadea contributions talk 13:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea It is exactly because Wikipedia should not be a playground that you should practice what you preach, or else continue to look hypocritical and further undermine the credibility of both Wikipedia and yourself. Since you already admitted that "the sourcing in that article is pretty atrocious in general" (your words, not mine), then why are you selectively targeting only the information that I offered, instead of revising or removing the entire article? I am well aware of the abuse of "blocking" privileges perpetrated by others here, which you're implying as a model for your own behavior. If you have a problem with the information which I presented in this article, then you're required to provide the evidence to support your claim that Clark Shao having the Chinese identity necessarily also means that he's "from China". FYI, this is your 2nd reversion in this 24 hour period. One more reversion from you and you should be blocked. Master-Of-America (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took you up on this and cleaned up the article in its entirety. Wikipedia articles are only as credible as the sources that support their content, so it is true that leaving an article with poor sources does help undermine the credibility of the encyclopedia. I understand why you couldn't add a source for the person's ethnicity – I couldn't find one either. --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read carefully. Like I had told you, Clark Shao mentioned the fact that he was "Chinese" during a video which he filmed for his work-out program which was called "SixPackShortcuts".Master-Of-America (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring while being clearly aware of the policy and after a previous block with two failed appeals.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What so-called "policy" are you referring to? I clearly did not violate the "three-revert-rule" because I did not revert more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. So, that means you're abusing your privileges by blocking me on Wikipedia. I have also tried to talk it out with you on your talk page via the link provided. But, you also blocked me from even talking to you about it. Master-Of-America (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly edit warring. You do not get a free pass because your fourth revert came 24 hours and 9 minutes after your first. Frankly, such gaming of the system is evidence of intent to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your claims, your own admission that my "fourth revert came 24 hours and 9 minutes after my first" contradicts your claim that I was "edit warring". I suggest that you review the three-revert-rule, because it clearly states that only when more than 3 reverts are made in a 24-hour period would constitute "edit warring". So, your unfounded insinuation about my "intent" has neither any actual evidence to support it nor any logic to it beyond your wishful speculation about my "intent". Furthermore, your citation about my fourth revert coming "24 hours and 9 minutes after my first" was also false, because anyone who can see and do simply arithmetic could tell that all of my three reverts from yesterday came within an hour of time. As an editor at Wikipedia, you should have known to only assume good-will from me, and only speak from facts, instead of pretending to be blind to the facts which contradict your own speculation and assertion about my intent. Master-Of-America (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring, ... and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you failed to read the entirety of what I had wrote to you before you replied. I clearly stated that your assertion that my "fourth revert came within 24 hours 9 minutes" was false. Anyone who is capable of counting and doing basic arithmetic would be able to tell that I only made a total of "3" reverts, not "four reverts", and all within one hour of time. So, there is no existence of that "fourth revert" as you claimed, and thus no such reality as the fourth revert having come "24 hours and 9 minutes after the first" as you also had claimed without evidence. So your entire argument about my "intent" based on those false claims of yours falls apart.

Secondly, as another issue altogether which is not relevant to my case here, you have failed to provide any facts from Wikipedia's policy to back up your claim that "reverting a fourth time just outside of the slot may also be considered edit warring". So, you just made up a definition that does not actually exist in Wikipedia's policy. Or else, can you show the source for your claim about this definition? Without any evidence to back up this claim, why are you falsely representing Wikipedia's policy?

Thirdly, the basis of your claim about edit warring is obviously false in of itself, because you cannot define what exactly is meant by "just outside of the 24-hour slot". For example, is it "9 minutes", 15 minutes, 6 minutes and 23 seconds,...etc? Without a clear threshold for what is meant by "just outside of", anyone could abuse the system by blocking someone based on their own arbitrary feeling about what constitutes "just outside of" the 24 hour period. So, unless you can show actual evidence from Wikipedia's policy relating to what you meant by "just outside of the 24 hour period", you are the one who is actually abusing and trying to game the system with your own arbitrary definition and fabrication.Master-Of-America (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the direct quote from WP:Edit warring: "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the revert count, let's take a look at some article history:

Adding the text "Chinese" to the introduction, 5 July 2018 but still on the first page of the article history. [1]

Re-addition of "Chinese", 13:55, 9 June 2020 [2]
Re-addition, 13:39, 10 June 2020 [3]
Re-addition, 13:45, 10 June 2020 [4]
Re-addition, 14:04, 10 June 2020 [5]

That's where the calculation of four reverts within 24 hours and 9 minutes came from. There was also no attempt to engage on Talk:Clark Shao during that time span. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 30990

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30990 is now closed --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding talk page access

Your block log and your most recent block message clearly state you were blocked for edit warring. They say nothing about breaching three reverts. If you will be appealing the block, it is your history of edit warring that will need to be addressed and you need to use the appeal template to do so. If you continue to use this page to play semantic "gotcha" regarding the three revert policy, which has nothing to do with the actual block, your access to this page will be revoked. You are a single-purpose account that has been trying to push through the same edit for two years. You have eaten up enough administrator time.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you will be appealing via WP:UTRS, please ensure your appeal addresses your block for long-term edit warring (i.e. the actual reason for your block).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]