Taichi101
Welcome edit
|
April 2013 edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Cold Season (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You revert content that is fully documented and you accuse me of promoting an edit war? You direct me to the talk section when this issue has already been addressed there? What is wrong with you? What privileges you to delete content that you don't like, when you are unable to articulate a reason? Amend the content if you like, to make it even more clear that the issue is contentious. That is not a problem. But as things stand now it is you who are engaging in an edit war. The burden of proof--why this content should be deleted--rests with you, not me.Taichi101 (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A piece of advice: It's not about who's right. You must discuss the issue with others on the talk page instead of continuing to revert. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You block me, but you do not block Cold Season? Talk Page has been availed. When a person accuses you of drawing conclusions, when you are merely stating matters of fact, what is there to discuss? Clearly the issue is contentious; I have never claimed otherwise. I left the standard claims to birthplace untouched. The response is that Sun repeatedly lied and that he used this as a strategy to retain US citizenship. Fair enough. State as much and provide appropriate citations. Not at all difficult, if what they say is the case. But why do you presuppose that matters of fact--e.g. birth certificate and Sun's own claims about place of birth--do not belong in a section concerning his place of birth. Puzzling, is it not?Taichi101 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to your question about Cold Season, you'll probably find answers by carefully reviewing the instructions at WP:3RR regarding repeated reverts. Putting that aside, if you want to see this information added into the article, the best path forward would be to engage with editors on the article's discussion page and work out the differences. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Block evasion edit
- Gomezerella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Taichi101, it is very important that you immediately cease and desist from attempting to evade your block. An admin is likely to reset or extend the block period for your primary account for block evasion, as well as indefinitely block all sockpuppets. This is not a good path to go down, and will only harm your long term interests in seeing that the article be modified with the information you wish to include. If you wish to get your block lifted early and proceed to discussing the birth/citizenship issue with other editors, there is a way to do so. Ask if you have questions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Sun Yat-sen edit
Restoring your sockpuppet comments are unacceptable, stop now. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your Gomezerella account has been blocked as an obvious sock per WP:DUCK and an SPI, Taichi101. Saying that you're actually just friends in real life who happen to share the same views and showed up at the same place/time to edit a particular article and want to see a particular edit inserted is not going to work. If you want to get something accomplished here, work within the rules and put your efforts into using the article's discussion page. If you wish to re-add your prior talk page comments that you made as Gomezerella, you'll need to take ownership of them by removing the Gomezerella signature and replacing it with your actual signature as Taichi101. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Taichi101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wrong accused. Chronic removal of content from discussion section by Darkness Shines and unwillingness to respond to criticism by Cold Season. Cold Season began the edit war, while ignoring talk page.Taichi101 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You need to focus on your own conduct, which consists of clear edit warring, socking, and attacks (see WP:NOTTHEM). Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2013 (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.
You falsely accuse me and permit the egregious behavior of others. Let it me. The quality of the article in question is as described. A small circle of collaborators. Good riddance to you all.Taichi101 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here's how you can reform your situation and get on the proper path to editing the article:
- 1. Per WP:SOCK, do not use sockpuppets or meatpuppets for any reason.
- 2. Per WP:EVADE, do not try to evade a block. Instead, take responsibility for your own conduct and file an appeal when you're ready to do that.
- 3. Per WP:NPA, never make personal attacks. Saying things like "I hope Wiki will die" just makes your motivations look suspect too. Ask yourself, if you're truly here to improve the content, how do making personal attacks or frivolous comments help your cause?
- 4. Do use the article's discussion page... you had the right idea there, but using a sockpuppet to continue the discussion resulted in your comments being removed after every posting. Imagine how much further you might be ahead in the editing process if you hadn't resorted to that.
- 5. After your block is lifted or expires, do not go right back to reverting the article text and changing it to your preferred version again. It will be seen as returning to edit warring rather than seeking to cooperate and collaborate with other editors. Read up on the WP:3RR rule so that you understand that as well.
- 6. Per WP:AGF, try to assume good faith. You've exacerbated your situation by assuming other editors are here to vandalize the article, or suppress certain information, or are collaborating in a conspiracy to keep you from making your edits.
- It's probably best to use the next 48 hours to consider these items in earnest, and then try again when you're ready. It's highly unlikely the block will be lifted in the interim unless you focus on your own conduct and articulate your responsibility. There was evidence in your article Talk Page comments that you're capable of rationally discussing the issue and making the case for why the information should be included in the article, but your overall behavior has been plainly disruptive in the view of everyone involved. Think it over, okay? Plenty of editors get off on the wrong foot but eventually realize they can participate here and enjoy it if they simply modify their own attitude. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added 02:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AzureCitizen (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)