SH9002

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of aircraft carriers by country. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -MBK₀₀₄ 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this so called waring. I did the edition regularly (from 05:58, 25 January 2010 to 12:16, 25 January 2010 ) and made the clear arguments in the talk page almost every time(09:43, 25 January 2010 to 12:15, 25 January 2010). --SH9002 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You've reverted 3 times within 24 hours, which is not allowed. It doesn't matter if you're already discussing the matter on the talk page, you are still not supposed to revert it back to your preferred version. That applies to both the "right" and "wrong" editors, but does not apply to genuine vandalism, which is not the case here. Achiving a consensus is more that just telling people why your are right and they are wrong - you have to convince people that your view is correct, and then they will make the changes to the article if needed. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Stop reverting the government in exile page, this is really not funny. The addition of ROC has been thoroughly debated on and ample evidences provided. If you take some time, you can see I am all over the discussion pabge of government in exile AND Republic of China. I dont see you anywhere.Mafia godfather (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is just what you should stop to do. I was discussing[1][2][3][4][5][6] in the talk page of article about Government in exile. If you don't want to I was in talking, it is your problem. SH9002 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You call that discussing? I find no credible evidences from you to back your point and numerous violation of wiki editing policy. Here are some REAL discussions. [7] and [8]. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, just so you know how far I can go, check out [9]. You better have enough to bring it, it means you better know your history, relevant information, laws, and wiki policy. There is a reason why most editors disagreed with your reverting.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You should check it out correctly, the page you gave[10]. I hadn't done any edition on that page. who were so-called '....most editors disagreed...', disagreed about what? and what are you really want to tell about? you were totally mad. SH9002 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I and every one had right to join any discussion any time & any where. Wikipedia is open, not your private property, sir. SH9002 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has the right, unless you break the rules, and you... have broken some major rules.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, you'd better look what you have really done.[11][12][13], and stop finally edit war please. SH9002 (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It all started when you did this [14]. And other editors, not just me, have expressed extreme disapproval of what you have started.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

When I see the above section, I dont blame them for warning you.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article, but u revert just the text more than 3 time. SH9002 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You reverted a major portion without proper logic and evidences to back your editing. That is vandalism and anyone is allowed to revert your violation. WP:VANDMafia godfather (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You please to read WP:VAND seriously first, & Please don't use wikipedia to do personal attack[15], ok? sir. SH9002 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I did read it seriously and I will not do anything remotely close to personal attack on you. But if you vandalize the page again, I will correct it.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry sir. I have no interest to talk with you, please leave me alone. You win the war. thank you. SH9002 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Government in exile. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ngchen (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for the waring, even you administrators gave me a block & do some things to stop vandalism of User_talk:Mafia_godfather finally. I appreciate for your action. It's great. second. Sorry, I dont want to do that, but User_talk:Mafia_godfather broke 3RR many times, and not administrator wanted to stop him before. I just did the regular edition. Btw Sir, you can check some complaints about User_talk:Mafia_godfather' behaviors before[16][17], & check how many time he broke 3RR rule even 4RR with 24 hours from May 29, 2010 to Jun 2. 2010[18]. --SH9002 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Although you didn't break WP:3RR, this isn't the first time you've skirted right up to the edge of it. You have to realise that three reverts is not an entitlement and the spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR will be enforced. Next time you find yourself getting drawn into an edit war, please leave the article alone and move straight to discussion. The advice at WP:BRD may be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if, sir gave me a block. But thank you for doing some things to stop vandalism of User_talk:Mafia_godfather finally. I appreciate for your action. It's great. second. Sorry, I dont want to do that, but User_talk:Mafia_godfather broke 3RR many times, and not administrator wanted to stop him before. I just did the regular edition. Btw Sir, you can check some complaints about User_talk:Mafia_godfather' behaviors before[19][20], & check how many time he broke 3RR rule even 4RR with 24 hours from May 29, 2010 to Jun 2. 2010[21]. --SH9002 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR

DO NOT make another reversion, not unless you want to get banned. Take this to the talk page if it is really of an issue. Reporting T-2000 for 3RR violation is optional, do it if you want, I'm gonna stay out of that. Liu Tao (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, but I didn't revert any article 3 times within 24 hours, so not violate 3RR. T-1000 reverted the text at the 3rd time(03:19, 3 August 2010) about 25 hours after the first reverting(02:01, 2 August 2010), so also didn't technically violate the 3RR. --SH9002 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I am wondering if you have a private email address that I can contact you with privately. If you do, post it on MY page and I will delete it once I received it, thank you. Liu Tao (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Terra nullius

Hi. Sorry about my erroneous reversion of your addition to Terra nullius, I clearly wasn't paying proper attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, thank you for your message.:) --SH9002 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile Cabal case

I've gone ahead and signed myself on as mediator for this case. see the note I left on the mediation page - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-17/Government in exile in the mediator's section. If you could each start by explaining what your particular perspective on the problem is (in the 'initial perspectives' section) that would help me get oriented. Please, for this first step try as much as possible to pretend that the other disputants aren't there; just explain your side without (as much as possible) commenting on other people's perspectives, or responding to what they have or do say. I really just want to get your unsullied view on the issue. --Ludwigs2 06:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

SH9002 - I need to know where you stand on the mediation. I'd like it if you'd give it a chance - I think we could work through at least some of the issues here - but if you really don't want to participate in the mediation at all then I need to know so that I can close it. Keep in mind my purpose as a mediator is not to decide anything, but merely to structure the discussion so that you guys can get a clearer perspective on the problem and (possibly) come to an agreement of some sort. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SH9002. You have new messages at Ludwigs2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Li Hongzhi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm sending you this now as a formality; you know what this means. Now, tone down your style since I'm allergic to this underlining and bolding type o'rhetoric and I am about to get pissed off. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Above "warning"/threat messages[22][23] are a fake accusation about a doesn't existed WP:WAR or 3RR vilation (check following history records of the article) and personal attack on me directly from User:Seb_az86556. User:Seb_az86556 himself involved in the edit debate/disputes in the article about Li Hongzhi[24][25][26], and abused the administrator's power (at moment User:Seb_az86556 is a reviewerWP:RVW)[27][28], try to give his favorite editing an unfair privilege right[29], and provoke personal attack direct on me[30][31]. Because he didn't give any other involved editors(User:Mrund, User:Homunculus and User:Seb_az86556 himself) any equivalent warning messages at same time, on 14 April 2012 (no warning to Mrund, nothing for Homunculus, nothing for Seb-az86556 himself ), if he did really think there was an edit warring. But he only attacked on me. So his behavior is definitely unneutralized. history record of that article between 12:27, 12 April 2012‎ and 10:11, 14 April 2012: (A) from 12:27, 12 April 2012‎ to 13:53, 12 April 2012 4 continuous edits[32][33][34][35] by SH9002 (me), (B) 22:19, 12 April 2012, Homunculus reverted my edits, (C) 07:28, 13 April 2012, Mrund disagreed with Homunculus restore my edits back, (D) 08:07, 13 April 2012‎, Seb_az86556 made a modification, (E) 11:45, 13 April 2012‎ and 11:54, 13 April 2012 2 continuous edits by myself (SH9002)[36][37] to add some source from Time.com and update an invalid old link, (F) 04:28, 14 April 2012‎, Homunculus removed some disputed contents according to the discussions[38] in talk page, (I agreed partly with his modification[39][40], even so he did such changes before I knew about that), (G) 09:21, 14 April 2012, Mrund changed some wording, (H) 10:08, 14 April 2012, I (SH9002) made some modification per discussion, and reported it back in talk page, (I) 10:11, 14 April 2012, Seb_az86556 reverted my edit, and then began to attack and threaten me[41][42], and falsified an accusation on me for so-called Violating of the 3RR[43], which doesn't exist. history record of talk page of related article between 12:55, 13 April 2012‎ and 10:12, 14 April 2012: (1) 12:55, 13 April 2012 to 12:57, 13 April 2012 2 comment edits by Homunculus[44][45], (2) 16:50, 13 April 2012‎, 1 comment edit by SH9002[46], (3) 17:55, 13 April 2012‎, 1 comment edit by Homunculus[47], (4) 22:44, 13 April 2012‎ to 23:15, 13 April 2012, 5 comment edits by SH9002[48][49][50][51][52], (5) 23:30, 13 April 2012‎, 05:28, 14 April 2012, 2 comment edits by Homunculus[53][54], (6) 05:44, 14 April 2012, 1 comment edit by Seb-az86556[55], (7) 09:03, 14 April 2012, 09:16, 14 April 2012‎, 2 comment edits by SH9002[56][57], (8) 09:24, 14 April 2012, 1 comment edit by Mrund[58], (9) 09:27, 14 April 2012 and 10:09, 14 April 2012‎ 2 comment edits by SH9002[59][60], (10) 10:12, 14 April 2012, attack and threat direct on SH9002 by Seb-az86556[61] --SH9002 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC) After match (history record of talk page) from 17:53, 14 April 2012‎ to 01:43, 15 April 2012: (I) 17:53, 14 April 2012, 1 comment edit by SH9002[62], try to find a way to communicate with Seb-az86556, (II) 21:47, 14 April 2012, Seb az86556 attacked me again with offensive wording "...You simply need to quit this junk..." [63] (III)01:43, 15 April 2012, I decided to follow his deportation order to quit the conversation.[64]. --SH9002 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi SH9002, I think it is mature of you to recuse yourself. Lest you think that you have been dealt an injustice here, I wanted to say a few words. On their face, your contribution to the page was fine - you used reliable sources to support a statement of fact. You also made a somewhat reasonable extrapolation based on those sources to arrive at a conclusion about Li's nationality. It is not your fault that the reliable sources you used were mistaken. I also can't hold it against you that you're unfamiliar with U.S. immigration processes, or with the general body of literature on this subject. The problem was that you refused to acknowledge the possibility that you were wrong, and you began edit warring. I can see from your talk page and edit history that you are rather prone to edit warring. So, a friendly word of advice: when more experienced editors who are knowledgeable on the subject disagree with you, try to be humble. At a minimum, try to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. Humility is a sign on intelligence, I think, or is at least a prerequisite to it. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Homunculus (duihua) 17:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

no comment --SH9002 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)