81.154.205.12

December 2007

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Cantonese people. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are also dangerously close to violating WP:3RR, so I would refrain from editing until a consensus can be achieved through the discussion page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Cantonese people. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Cantonese people, you will be blocked from editing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at the Cantonese people article. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warnings. I suggest you take this short vacation from editing to familiarize yourself with our policy of no original research as well as our guidelines for reliable sources and how to cite them. If you are trying to make a controversial change, continue discussing your point on the article's talk page without reinserting the information into the article itself. Edit wars are disruptive and will not help you get your way. Kafziel ^Talk 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No Seicer, if you type in 'Cantonese' in the Wiki search, you will get as one of the disambiguation, 'Cantonese People: people who reside, or have ancestral roots, in Guangdong Province.' Clicking on this takes you to the subject article in this debate. The previous editors have deliberately excluded the Hakka and Teowchiu people by claiming that they are not Cantonese. I have clearly stated the source as the Wiki article 'Guangdong' in which clearly stated that the Hakka and Teowchiu people are in Guangdong, thus they are Guangdongren, and must be included in the article 'Cantonese'. If you and other editors continue to vandalise this article, you will be banned. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, prolonged threats get you nowhere. And by sources, which seem to change in your edit summaries, do you mean...

1. [1]: "The source is anyone in Guangdong Province will tell you the same."

2. [2]: "Source is within the article on Guangdong."

3. [3] "Jéské Couriano knows nothing about Cantonese people (Guangdongren) which is the title of this article, and is in no position to edit this article."

4. [4] "Undo as not pushing my view, but putting true and proper information.Jéské Couriano, what do you know about Cantonese, as in Guangdongren, anyway?"

5. [5] "Article is about Guangdongren (as stated in Chinese in the article), so it includes everyone in Guangdong irrespective of what language they speak."

They seem to change along with the flavour of the month. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To: Seicer, Kafziel and Jeske Couriano.

The edits made were true and proper, and was on the subject of the article. Namely: 'Cantonese People: people who reside, or have ancestral roots, in Guangdong Province.' Is the 'flavour of the month', ie building up more reasons, against Wiki rules? You are the ones making threats, ie 'banning you etc', when clearly you are the ones who should be banned, as you have no real knowledge of the subject matter of the article concerned. Oh, and I have cited the source, indeed it is the Wiki article 'Guangdong', which apparently is not a good enough source for Wiki. How very strange!!! So its you who are offering 'flavour of the month' as reason. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see your citation anywhere within this edit; what you added in essence was original research. Per WP:SOURCES: "...most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

Per WP:SPS: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources."

So, will you abide by consensus and the policies and guidelines listed above? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have cited the source which is the Wiki article 'Guangdong'. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This has nothing to do with citing sources. You were edit warring, and were blocked for it. This has nothing to do with whether your information was right or wrong, sourced or unsourced. Kafziel ^Talk 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Of course. I don't know whether you know anything about the subject, but it was full of Punti racism. Whoever edited the article claimed Hakka and Teowchiu people are not Cantonese. Hakka and Teowchiu people are definitely Cantonese (as per Wiki article 'Guangdong', as given by the Chinese translation in the article of Guangdongren. Would you not object and edit to clarify if someone said to you African-Americans are not Americans? 81.154.205.12 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jeske Couriano not banned as he also broke the WP:3RR rule? Is there a list of accepted magazines, and what if the information in University-level text-books are wrong or out of date?81.154.205.12 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeske Couriano is not blocked because I believe he accidentally broke the rule. And, as an established good-faith editor, he can be trusted to stop after only a warning. You, on the other hand, broke the rule just minutes after being specifically warned by Seicer. I encourage you to use this time to read up on the policies I linked to in my original message to you, rather than arguing about it or worrying about what's going on with other editors. Kafziel ^Talk 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning consensus, just to let you know the consensus of the Guangdong Provincial Government and the Chinese Central Government is that the Hakka and Teowchiu peoples in Guangdong are Guangdongren ie Cantonese, and have the same ID registration details as everyone else in Guangdong. Who's Jeske Couriano or anyone else, to say they are not Cantonese?81.154.205.12 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Kafiel, your reason for decline is unacceptable by Wiki rules, as the request should have gone to an independent editor, and you are not independent as you have already seen the block. I did not start the edit war, Jeske Couriano did. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to re-check those rules. There's nowhere that says the blocking admin can't review his or her own block. I've been known to reverse my own decisions in the past when given sufficient reason. You haven't given me a single one. The whining and wikilawyering certainly aren't helping your case. Kafziel ^Talk 07:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a wholly unverifiable source that would never be admissible on WP due to its original research. Consensus of whose government? Citations? Documents? Something other than a WP article, which is by the way, inadmissible?

With comments of continued vandalism and user/admin abuse, as you stated earlier in the talk pages, I don't see this editor ever constructively editing. I am an "independent" editor who came here via other means, but it was quite obvious that you were offering up POV with a side of OR, and quite relentless at that. Go find something else to edit after the ban and cool off, come back, and gain consensus with discussion, not edit warring. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Dalai Lama for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Addhoc (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Hakka for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Overseas Vietnamese. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Overseas Vietnamese, you will be blocked from editing. —Animum (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---