Xytfvwskdnuimi

Talk:Republic of China

An administrator archived the requested move discussion, and that decision is final. Stop tampering with the closure process. GotR ^Talk 19:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Talk:Republic of China 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. GotR ^Talk 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was being tampered with by editors deleting support votes just to push their oppose stance. You can see from record what they did. The majority consensus indisputably shows a majority consensus with 49 votes in support and 44 votes opposing it, but some editors are deleting the support votes to make it look like the opposition has more when it doesn't, and then they try to get their administrator friend to close it after they delete the support votes. Unacceptable, the majority consensus is flat out in support of the move! Xytfvwskdnuimi (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkramBinWallid for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GotR ^Talk 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You Talk are trying to delete support votes and then promptly closing the talk page so that you can deceive administrators arbitrating this case into thinking that the oppose group has more votes when in reality it has less votes than the support group. The Majority consensus is very clear in Support of the move with 49 Support vs 44 Oppose. Majority vote has won in support of the move! Your sneaky deception tactics will not work! Xytfvwskdnuimi (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)