User talk:VThomson

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).

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

Request reason:

The edit war started by the other person's deletion on large scale. Does the rule have consideration on who actually started it?

Decline reason:

No. This is a good time for you to actually read the policy that you were given a link to several times below. Kuru (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

The Wikipedia gizmo is beyond my computer capacity and I really do not have the time to learn it quick enough. This deletion is, I believe ill faith in nature. The blockage for me to edit is also due to ill-faith deletion earlier.

Decline reason:

The block is not due to ill-faith, but due to your edit warring. See also WP:AGF and WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2015 (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.

My sincere apology for reverting other's change without explanations because I did not realise the importance of it at that time since I do not contribute to Wikipedia as a hobby or habit and the Talk & other various gizmo on the Wikipedia is totally foreign to me. This is the first (and possibly the last) contribution to Wikipedia as I felt compelled to improve the article since I know the subject well enough to find the information in the original article incomplete and predisposed. If a reader find the references difficult to use due to my poor writing, he should talk or improve them but not delete a perfectly good article. Due to the nature of the Wikipedia, conventional methods of verification are generally impossible which has made the tasks of referencing rather difficult . A person of unknown ability and quality deemed the references being of poor quality that does not render it is the case. On two occasions I used Guanyin Citta's website which is closely related to Jun Hong Lu, thus the comments made by Ogress that references are unreliable, paid, non-independent or self-supported which are totally unwarranted and unjustifiable. It is merely his/her personal opinion regardless of the intentions. The references are from independent and reliable sources which fully collaborate the article repeatedly and consistently. This article is a biography of a living person, I can't see any reason not to quote from the website of the person as long as it is clearly indicated, especially it is about Jun Hong Lu's personal life that has nothing to do with his currently status as a religious leader. The part of the article, being deleted on 12 June by the person mentioned above, is not written or posted by me. I was convinced enough to leave the way it was as it is consistent with the other information I know but not disclosed in the article which would obviously change after this incident if the outcome of the dispute permits. The warning tags were removed after necessary changes have been made to the references and the article so the issues are then considered resolved by me. May I ask who is going to decide if this article is going to be deleted or kept? And if it is to be kept, in what form?

Proposed deletion of Jun Hong Lu‎

The article Jun Hong Lu‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

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

VThomson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi VThomson! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jun Hong Lu has been reverted.
Your edit here to Jun Hong Lu 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://ayoubmzee.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/launch-of-international-strategic.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
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) 01:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jun Hong Lu. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ogress _smash! 07:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jun Hong Lu. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
TAKE IT TO TALK Ogress _smash! 07:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jun Hong Lu. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. —Darkwind (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]