User talk:Wangleetodd

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wu wei, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Wknight94 ^talk 10:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chinese culture. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Wknight94 ^talk 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our WP:NPOV policy. A single tragic event is not something to be mentioned in a general article about Chinese culture or a major religion. You are clearly trying to present this single event as representative of an entire ethnicity and religion. Wknight94 ^talk 11:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Swarm 11:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Chinese culture, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wknight94 ^talk 11:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wangleetodd. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Swarm 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the three-revert rule ("3RR") at Chinese culture. While it is good that you attempted to discuss at the talk page (and you're right that you should have been given responses), you mustn't keep restoring text in the absence of a response by Wknight94. Lest you think you're being treated unfairly, please note that I've also blocked Wknight94, since both of you violated 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate 3RR - I read the policy carefully, and I did not make more than 3 reverts, only Wknight94 did (he made 4 reverts). Meanwhile, he has been unblocked, proving that there is an ongoing sysop abuse here - the ruling clique is siding for their privileges. That is outrageous, and proves that there is no protection for the average user. I cannot even participate in the discussion page about the complaint I made. this site is turning into sysop dictatorship.

I'll copy this over, as well as anything else you want to add to the AN discussion. Swarm 14:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am making a request for unbanning. Regardless of if someone agrees with my edits (which I think are justified) or not, the whole situation of banning and unbanning seems utterly unfair to the way common users are treated. Wangleetodd (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you, since you kindly offered me to help me participate in the discussion at noticeboard, just to ask them to at the very least stop with the insults, like "troll", "idiotic", "trash" etc. If the attitude they are displaying is what this site is about, then "good faith", "civility" and other policies (not to mention 3RR wich was obviously disregarded to unban a sysop), policy of discussing things and all policies that are meant to help conflict resolution here mean nothing in practice - the only rule that seems to apply is might is right. Some sysops seem to have especial pleasure in insulting someone who cannot talk back. Maybe there are some similarities with the case that started this whole thing, and that some people keep deleting. Wangleetodd (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is ridicilous abuse of the sysops siding with each other. I was supposedly banned for 3RR violation (that is what sysop who banned me wrote on my page). However, as I read the policy meanwhile, I did not violate it - I made 3 reverts to my edit, that was blanked 4 times (after last time, and threat of the sysop who was in edit dispute that he will ban me, I took the issue to the noticeboards - first to POV noticeboard and later to the more appropriate one which I found). But that is not essence of the problem - the essence that the other editor who was sysop and violated 3RR, was also banned according to policy and is now unbanned. The editor, who made 4 reverts was banned after my intervention at noticeboard - I have tried to engage the person who was doing reverts, accusing me of "vandalism" on talk page, invited him to discuss issues on talk page of article (I moved the issue there from the main page) but he refused- although I did all this, which the banning sysopn recognized, I was banned for 3RR (though I did not make the last revert - after third one, I took issue to the talk page and also, more importantly, started to complain about the abusive editor, who happens to be sysop). In the discussion about the abuses that he made, that his I started, his fellow sysops concluded that he, as a sysop, should be unbanned and that policy 3RR does not apply to him. There was not a word about the unfairness with which non-sysop users are treated. My disputed edits (which were well sourced - also see my arguments for inclusion of section on talk page of article) were called at the same time pro-chinese (by a sysop apparently from europe), and OR and utter trash (by sysop apparently Chinese), both pro and anti chinese, while I was merely using information that surfaced in the wake of toddler run over in China, in meantime I see that BBC and other mainstream media have commented on this and refered to ongoing debate about Chinese culture and why such incidents (BBC names many) happen, which is related to Chinese culture. However, even if people disagree with my edits, is this the way to do it - against all rules, and when sysop is in question, he is allowed to do things wich are explicitly said in the policies that he is not supposed to do. All that I pointed out, yet I am barred from discussion on noticeboard, my edits are ridiculed there (and that in contradictory way), but the most appaling thing is that cabal of sysops quickly removed the ban of their fellow sysop, while I, who in fact did not violate 3RR and in fact did things bringing them on talk pages and noticeboards asking for help as they are supposedly meant to be done remain banned. Does nobody care about common editors? Does it only matter to sysops to protect each other backs? Do policies here mean nothing? What is to protect common people from sysop abuse if rules that community agreed upon are violated for no better reason that to protect sysop power? Is that what this site is about? Why do you need talk pages, when sysops do not need to discuss it with anyone - are they supposed just to bully and strip common editors so that they have no say, and decide what is "trash" and what is not, despite the best effort to provide references and solve dispute on talk pages by an outsider, they just ban whoever they like and decide that policies do not apply to them, as their deletionist edits are "valuable contribution" while edits that are provided references and discussed on talk page are not dignified with a talk page response, and are dismissed as "OR trash" or "ridicilous" pro Chinese/anti Chinese (the dismisals are contradictory but what matters only, is that fellow admin is protected).

Decline reason:

Read WP:EW - you do not need to violate 3RR in order to be edit-warring. Please read WP:GAB before you consider creating a new block request - there is nothing in the wall'o'text above that even comes close to being an actionable unblock request - indeed, most of it will typically result in having your talkpage access locked for the duration of this extremely short block. While blocked, read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS in addition to the edit-warring policy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 18 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

the admin who reviewed my request misunderstood my point - I was referring only to 3RR as the reason that banning admin referred to in his notice (above on the page). My main complaint is that the other person involved in "edit war" - the sysop who was also banned - is now unbanned, and that is utterly unfair. In fact, i cannot participate in the discussion on the admin board (at least until someone transfers my comments from here, which seems not to be working well) while he imediately when unbanned started to insult me, now he is calling me "racist". Also, I did point out that it was me who, after having trouble with the other, unbanned editor, tried to engage him on talk page (personal and article talk page), it was me who took this to the noticeboard, and it is me who is being treated unfairly here. The page, which I left at his edit and left to talk pages (well before the ban, which was issued to both of us because of me taking it to noticeboard), is now protected and there was no danger of "edit war" continuing even before the ban. Since the issue here is that of sysop abuse and sysop privilege, it is clear to me that most sysops like to keep the ban, but hopefully this will be reviewed by someone more objective.

Decline reason:

Both you and the other editor involved in the edit war were blocked. One of the two has been unblocked after a couple of hours, the other has been left blocked for 24 hours. That is only "unfair" if you think that Wikipedia should be run with an automatic response to edit warring, rather than with intelligent consideration of the facts in each case. You have not only edit warred, you have also in the short history of this account recorded numerous other examples of unhelpful editing, including incivility, personal attacks, accusing everyone who does anything you don't like of being part of some monstrous conspiracy, attempting to impose your own unsourced interpretation of sources on an article... The other editor did not behave perfectly, transgressing the three revert rule, but this was a minor error of judgement in an attempt to deal with problematic editing. I also reiterate the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks. That advice has already been given to you at least three times, and yet you do not seem to have taken on board the section WP:NOTTHEM in that guide. Whether you should be unblocked or not is a separate question from whether another editor should or should not have been unblocked, and arguing about the latter as a means of trying to persuade people to your view on the former is unlikely to succeed, and may well be counterproductive. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (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 have explained clearly below that there are two separate issues, and see no point in stressing that in the reply. However, I have to disagree with the claim that sysop ban was a minor issue. He was blocked, just as me, for the edit war, however, he engaged in harrasment and personal attacks, including calling me "racist", "vandal", "troll". Worse, as soon as he was unblocked, he increased his verbal abuse. He issued warnings for vandalism; he refused to engage on the talk page and refused to admit any culpability. I dont see how is this a minor issue. As for the claim about abuse, did you see the ANI thread, with insult raging from "idiotic" to "racist" "bad faith editor" etc. A couple of editors defended me against the insults, and some of the harrasing editors have a long history of abuse. This is certainly not a minor issue. While I did explain these things below, I did not put them into my original unban request, as the abuse was the main issue, that needs to be dealt with properly. There is no "conspiracy" other than the crowd mentality of verbally lynching an editor for the edits they disagree with. So parallels run deeper, and the only effect of the ban was to stop me from participating in the discussion about the abuse. However, the block (wich was never the real issue) will expire and the uncivil editors (not only the offending and unjustly unblocked sysop) need to be held accountable.Wangleetodd (talk)

If you wish to participate in the ANI discussion use {{help}} followed by a request to have text copied over (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you view the situation as "unfair" or "abusive", you did edit war. The block is in place to prevent further edit warring. Unblock requests should not argue that the block was unfair, but should explain why the block is not necessary. Ideally, this would mean explaining that you understand why you were blocked and giving an assurance that you will not repeat the inappropriate behavior. If you are unblocked and continue to edit war, your block will almost certainly be reinstated with zero chance of another early unblock. I recommend you reword. Regards, Swarm 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey whoa ... did I see in this most recent unblock notice that I'm not objective? I would love to gain some improved understanding of that statement. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise

(I hope...) Be brief. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please transfer this to the ANI page: {{help}} Could you cut down on the insults, like "troll", "idiotic", "racist", "trash" etc. If this is what this site is about, then "good faith", "civility" and other policies (not to mention 3RR wich was obviously disregarded to unban a sysop), policy of discussing things and all policies that are meant to help conflict resolution here mean nothing in practice - the only rule that seems to apply is might is right. Some sysops seem to have especial pleasure in insulting someone who cannot talk back. Also, the sources are for the incidents, and the wu wei generalities (which are not controversial) have other sources [1], [2]. Also, the cultulral issues discussed in BBC news [3], where there are numerous other incidents listed.

Will do... Swarm 16:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am grateful for your calmness and reason in the whole situation. The policies that are formulated are here for a reason, however if everyone applied them and there were more experienced users that behaved like you, instead of resorting to abuse and insults, this would be much more decent place. Sysops and experienced users should set a good example, not be champions of abuse. Wangleetodd (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you then take the advice given to you for a moment? Usually when 2 editors are blocked for 3RR and one is unblocked, the other usually is too. However, to become unblocked, both editors would be required as per WP:GAB to acknowledge and understand the reasoning behind the block. You're arguing sysop privilege, unfairness ... but you have YET to acknowledge that you did, according to the rules, edit-war. You have yet to acknowledge that you were not following WP:NPOV. If you had a) acknowledged those, b) proved that you would not do it again, and c) mention in passing that the other editor was unblocked (not focused on it) then you likely would have been unblocked as well. Until you do a and b, you cannot be unblocked - period. Instead, you have dug yourself a gigantic hole - one that will be extremely difficult to climb out of (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that I was involved in edit war. Although initially I reverted back my material (that was insultively marked as "vandalism"), I soon took things to the talk page and responded on noticeboard to the issue of abuse. There are 2 issues here - edit war, and sysop threats of abusive block (due to conflict of interest). I would not even object to the edit war block, if the sysop was not unbanned. However, from my actions prior to the block (i stoped the reverts, went to the talk page - both article and personal, and was at that point concerned about what I felt was bullying, taking the issue to the noticeboard too), it is clear that I had intention to take a constructive approach. This seems to have worked, as sysop finally responded on noticeboard, but then there was ban. The issue for me is that ban was reverted for sysop, after which he started with insults on noticeboard, calling me racist etc. Clearly, there are POV issues here, and I acknowledged this both on noticeboard and by taking the issue to the discussion page (which other party refused to follow). I presented my opinion on the talk page of the article, and was waiting for response, rather than continuing with reverts. Since there is a POV dispute, the only way to get to the bottom of things is to talk them over at the discussion page, which is exactly what I tried to do. Admitedly, after the 3 reverts, but it was my initiative, even without knowing the details of the policies that I have now read. If anything, a sysop should know better than making even more reverts and refusing to talk about the issues. However, while I acknowledge that NPOV policies need to be followed by discussing things over, I cannot accept to be called a "troll", "idiot", "racist" etc. for the good faith edits that I made. NPOV is determined by concensus, and bias (and that includes outrage at something happening, which might have influenced my wording) is inherent in all editors - noone is fully free from it. Although I tried to put things in perspective (I was blamed both for being an Chinese apologist and anti-Chinese at noticeboard), when others object to edit the thing is as I think is policy here also to talk things over on discussion page. So this is the place to take NPOV issues, not calling someone a "vandal" or "troll" and deleting whole section 4 times. That is what I can say about the first issue, of edit war and NPOV, both of which I recognize. However, the second issue is for me much more important, and is not directly related to my unbanning request, which is a side issue. Why did not the other editor - the sysop - have to acknowlege his part in the story, i.e. edit warring, insults (vandal and later "troll" and "racist") and misplaced vandalism warnings and threats of ban in clear conflict of interests case, in order to get unbanned? He does not seem to acknowlege that even now - he says he thinks it is ridicilous that he has to defend his reverts, in violation of 3RR. Moreover, as soon as he was unbanned, he started a sequence of personal insults on ANI page, all that while I was powerless to respond (thanks to kindness of Swarm, some comments were copied there, but clearly I cannot respond in an appropriate and timely way). I have been verbally lynched on noticeboard page, and this is where I see the worst abuse in this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangleetodd (talk • contribs)

You clearly still don't get it ... WP:NOTTHEM will never, ever work. Once you crossed the line into edit-warring, it was far too late to try and discuss - that's what WP:BRD tries to tell you. Your unblock notice still is full of WP:NOTTHEM (and indeed, WP:EBUR) ... so much so, it cannot be actionned. I'm personally still waiting to hear why you called me "non-objective". You're right, a whole lot of people's hands are not clean here ... but you're trying to make 2 wrongs make a right, rather than looking at this intelligently, and recognizing where YOU personally escalated this (and continue to escalate it) needlessly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can understand that I am under impression that sysops side with each other. Look at the noticeboard, and you will see why. However, it is possible that you are different, perhaps now that you clearly are informed about what was going on (I had a perhaps unjustified impression that you did not know all the details when you responded to my request). As I said there are two issues here, and only one involves my unbanning. Since I really care more about the other issue, the things which I said in my unbanning request are misplaced, as I was responding to the situation of unfair treatment, and was not able to do that in appropriate way elsewhere. However, let me get things straight.

1. I understand what 3RR/EW says. I read this policy (and other) in the meantime carefully. So, this is my understanding: I did violate the edit war policy (of no edit waring) by reverting more than once (though, as it is formulated, not the 3RR - but this is not too relevant). The ban for edit warring I can understand, and acknowledge my part in it. If I didnt make that clear before, I guess this should make this explicit. I also acknowledge that the edits are not NPOV, since they are disputed. The issue should have gone to the talk page earlier, and that it didn't it is my mistake. While I do think that a section on wu wei has its place (in one form or another) in the article, this is my opinion, and if (and in what extent) this should be in the article is to be decided on the talk page, according to concensus/after discussion.

2. (not related to my unbanning request) I strongly object to the other, sysop party, actions and to his unbanning, that did not ivolve even a trace of admitting his mistakes. I strongly object to the personal insults that were thrown to me at ANI pages from many users. The only reason I mention it here, is that I have no direct access to the ANI page. Since my ban is expiring tomorrow, the only thing I would actually do would if I were unbanned is to respond to these issues, which I think are very serious. Not because of me, but because it is my impression that it is a common practice here. Judging by the ANI page, the policies here are applied selectively, and sysops too often abuse their position. Policies of no insults, 3RR, and conflict resolution, should apply to ALL. 3RR is clear, and it does not make exceptions for sysops. The cases when 3RR does not apply (obvious vandalism, copyright, BLP) are clearly listed. None of these exceptions allowed banned (and unjustly unbanned) sysop to violate 3RR in this particular case. There is no justification for personal insults. I acknowledge that in my dealings with the banned sysop I could also have been kinder (by assuming good faith, as Swarm kindly warned me), however, I do not think anything I did justifies the abuse I got at ANI page. Also, the offending sysop, as soon as unbanned, increased his insults (from vandal to racist, troll etc), and nowhere showed that he admits his mistakes. I repeat, this is a separate issue from the request (which is less important anyway), and it is the issue of selective application of clearly formulated rules on this site. Do you deny that the difference in treatments of the two offending parties (me and the sysop) was unfair?

First, please sign any talkpage comments using ~~~~. Second, learn the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN and the reasonings behind each. Third, understand that your actions met the definition of WP:TROLL to a T, which means that people often jump to justify the actions. I already stated that nobody's hands are clean ... but eye-for-an-eye makes both people blind. I'll be honest, you're not looking good in a lot of people's eyes right now. How you move forward will be key: are you going to be an adult, or a kid. You get to choose, and that will determine your success. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might not know the difference between ban and block (you cannot expect me to know all the policies, as you do, but at the very least I read a couple by now, including the ones referred to before), but I do have a keen eye for injustice and abuse of power. That you are joining the bandwagon and calling me a troll, albeit indirectly, might be dissapointing, but it fits well with most other users. Luckily, not all. Being in the majority, in real life certainly, is no guarantee of being in the right. I trust you can understand that. That most people at ANI page joined in my verbal lynching is nothing unknown to human experience. As for the troll essay (I gather that is not a policy), it clearly does not apply to me - there is no intention to disrupt anything from my part. As I explained, the whole situation escalated due to the ban, while it would have ended on the talk page anyway. If you think that pointing out sysop abuse is disruptive, than there is something seriously wrong with your sense of justice. A power corrupts, and sysops (including you) do have power here. If fighting injustice and power abuse is trolling, then you have to include Gandhi, MalcolmX, and most revolutionaries into your rank of "trolls". As for the policies, the policy of assuming good faith seems to be disregarded here by everyone (including as Swarm pointed it out to me), and I would advise you to rethink your take on the whole situation. You can take as much pride in siding with the ANI crowd here as those unfortunate 18 passers by who started the whole dispute. You do nothing to enforce your rules to prevent abuse, but at least you did a bit to stand against the lynching crowd. That you seem to join their ranks now, while dissapointing, is not too surprising. This whole incident speaks much more about the crowd mentality of this site, than about me or anything else.

Hopefully you're taken a good rest, and are thinking a little more clearly today. Let me provide a little helpful information for you.

at least 1/4 (probably closer to 1/2) of the people commenting on your case are not admins - they're simply people who watch the AN boards.
at least 1/3 of the people commenting on your case have done the research: they have reviewed all of your edits, the admin's edits, and any intervening. Everyone knows who does their research, and put a lot of trust in their judgement
about 1/3 are therefore reading those who investigated in-depth, and are commenting accordingly
another 1/3 haven't read shit, and are commenting based on the surface reading.

In a few hours, this block will expire. You can do one of three things:

go to WP:AN or WP:ANI and rail away about your perceived horrific treatment. You will be summarily blocked indefinitely, and consider yourself a martyr
file an WP:RFC/U against the admin in question. Yes, this requires someone to "co-sign", but if the actions were as bad as you think they are, you should have no trouble finding someone else.
reflect on what has been said and suggested. Look at yourself, your actions, and how people perceived your actions - people don't get jump on an editor for no reason. From what you say above, you do not yet see how your own actions have led to where we are now.

Dude, this could have been avoided. You are the person who had the power to avoid it. You now have the power to be an adult, or a child. This means that you also have the choice between learning from the experience and going on to be a good editor, or to be permanently blocked from Wikipedia (yes, now WP:BAN comes into play). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Don't make "funny" changes to peoples' usernames when referring to them in your posts, regardless of what they may or may not have done in interactions with you. It isn't funny, and it is in fact offensive, uncivil, and can be seen easily as a personal attack. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What changes to the names? I used BB as short name, it is clearly not meant to be offensive or humorous (the tone is quite serious, where did you get the idea of "funny"?Wangleetodd (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am often called BB, among other things. It's not a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been called a lot worse things than Baseball "Bats". Pretty funny. Not a problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuangzi

The article contradicts itself. It has various comments that state when he was "thought to have" lived, yet somehow the infobox has exact dates. Something's amiss there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those dates were added a couple of years ago, without attribution.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[5]]Wangleetodd (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the dates are certain, the article should be clearer about it, and should use that book as a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few words of advice

You have, unfortunately, had a rather rough experience so far as a Wikipedia editor. I do hope things go more smoothly for you from now on. I thought a few words of advice might help. You have been accused of various things, some of them, in my opinion, justified, but some of them quite unjustified. In particular, I have seen no evidence to support accusations of lack of good faith on your part. However, even when you are subject to accusations which are unfounded, you are likely to antagonise other editors if you are perceived as showing a battleground mentality, which to a significant extent is the way many of your comments have looked. I frequently see behaviour on Wikipedia which I think is unhelpful, as is unfortunately inevitable in a project which is open to anyone to join. I wouldn't like to guess how many times over the years I have made responses which have deliberately been more polite than I think have been justified: "perhaps you didn't realise" when a more frank expression would be "you realised full well and deliberately chose to be uncooperative". The important thing to realise is that, on the whole, this works. Firstly, surprisingly often the person I am being so polite to responds in a more constructive way than they had done before. Secondly, if they continue to behave unhelpfully, then other people perceive the problem as being of their making, rather than mine, so discussion is unlikely to be deflected onto my behaviour, rather than concentrating on whatever the initial problem was. It seems to me that the problem that eventually led to your being blocked was that you cited a source about an incident, but added an interpretation of the incident as containing a general message about the nature of Chinese culture as a whole, which may or may not have been valid, but was your own interpretation, going beyond what was said in the source. It would certainly have been more helpful had this been explained to you right at the beginning, instead of your just being given general warnings about "making unconstructive edits" and "vandalism". I can perfectly well see how you saw that as unwarranted. However, it seems to me that the whole incident got blown up into something far bigger than it should have done largely because of your aggressive responses. Right from your first talk page posts you were referring to "censorship", "bullying", and so on. I have every sympathy with someone in your position, who sees him/herself being wrongly accused, and I can fully understand why you felt like responding angrily, but I am trying to help you avoid such problems in the future by pointing out how what you did looked to others. If you can avoid the same belligerent approach in the future, and respond to incivility and accusations with civility, you will probably be able to have a constructive and rewarding experience contributing to Wikipedia, as opposed to being blocked again for longer periods, perhaps even indefinitely. I suggest that, rather than saying "you are bullying me and censoring what I write", you say "can you please help me by explaining what you see as the problem with my edit? I think what I did was justified because..." Finally, I don't think you would think of suggesting that all administrators automatically support one another if you had 10% of the experience I have of interactions between administrators who come nowhere near to supporting one another. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: insult

Please don't repeat [6] because it's insulting, and a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, ... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MB298 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Blogs or other sites of organizations with a slant towards a certain side of an issue are not reliable sources. If you have an independent reliable source that confirms the manner of the man's death, please offer it on the talk page- though I don't think there is one yet. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly suggest that you discuss this issue on the article talk page, as there are some serious NPOV concerns with what you are attempting to add, and the sources do not seem reliable. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have hard-blocked a clearly related IP that has been alternating with this account to edit-war. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]