User talk:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of 218.188.90.194 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

the anon ip who reported me

the anon editor 122.105.149.69 is also known as David873, who has been blocked for disruptive editing, and harrasmentㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:David 873 AKA 122.105.149.69

as proven here, he is a troll and a disruptive editor.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and for being a bad-hand account. It appears that this is related to my recent edits as well as my sockpuppetry accusations. I confess that I have been involved in a heated dispute with another editor recently over the reliability of sources at Talk:Lý Long Tường and must have over-stepped the mark at some point. I had been trying to explain that state-run sources are not reliable to no avail. In any case, I promise not to edit the said talk page until the dispute is settled by other editors and to refrain from making potentially condescending comments in the future.

I have also been embroiled in a series of incidents which resulted in my accusing many users of sockpuppetry. I admit that I might have taken too hard a line against possible cases of sockpuppetry and promise that I will be more careful in the future should I be allowed to edit again.

Also, given my editing history and the fact that I have not been blocked before, I find it hard to see that I have been trolling or generally causing disruption at Wikipedia. Furthermore, I believe that I had not been adequately warned. After all, the editing history for my user account shows that I am actually interested about the neutrality and factual accuracy of Wikipedia articles rather than someone who is only interested in intimidating or harassing other editors. Therefore, I request that I be either unblocked or that the block be downgraded from indefinite to a fixed duration.

Decline reason:

Your first edits show that you are clearly not a new user. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are, but a large part of your contributions seem to consist largely of trolling. Furthermore, as Sandstein points out, you did not address the reason you were blocked for in the first place. Please use your main account, whatever it is, and please review WP:GHBH so that you can avoid similar situations like this in the future. Khoi khoi 07:57, 7 August 2008 (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.

You don't address the bad-hand account issue. Do you have other accounts? Sandstein 07:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not used or signed up any other registered user account nor have I engaged in sockpuppetry (including meatpuppetry of any kind). If there is a sockpuppetry accusation or some other report against me, then I wish to examine and respond to it. I regret that I mistook "bad-hand account" to simply mean "frequently disruptive account". I do admit though that I had been editing as an annonymous IP editor before I registered the user account David873. Since registering the user account, I have ceased editing as an IP editor. David873 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here, the sockpuppet 122.105.149.69 AKA David873 is a disruptive user who has harrased and trolled around wikipedia.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my edits ar cantonese people that 122.105.149.69 is complaining about

he claims the edits i made was racist and disruptive..... it was sourced, first of all, and second of all, i did not write it, i took it from the vietnamese people article, and THIRD, it is not vvandalism, everything mentioned in the edits was in the sourceㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as you can see another editor reverted 122.105.149.69's disruptive edit removing the sourced information.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: Note that this is the English Wikipedia, kindly change you username to another that other wikipedians won't find it a hassle to address you as such. This is my first advice.. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. Dave1185 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dude only admins can change usernames.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a dude, wasn't born to surf or hang loose either but that's beside the point. You can ask for a change in username by clicking this → Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know your not a dude, your a sockpuppet.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave1185 AKA David873 AKA 122.105.149.69

these 3 are all the same.

1. the content on Dave1185's user page matched exactly the one the blocked user David873 put on HIS userpage.

2. all 3 listed above are obssesed with getting me blocked.

3. They all have made similar warnings on my page while they are clearly not admins.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Dave1185 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Dave1185 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you yourself is a sockpuppet, you are in no position to lecture me, david.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is a Sockpuppetry case

Dave has been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dave1185 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 21:54, 2 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was Reported by a hypocritical user who himself uses sockpuppets and harrased people with his socks.

Decline reason:

You went about it entirely the wrong way and this on top of your other issues, I don't think you should be allowed to edit the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (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.

Im not actually requesting an unblock, i just want the user who accused me be blocked as well, because he is breaking wikipedia rules and policies. and getting away with it, i need to bring it up.

This is not what you use {{unblock}} for. One more misuse of that template, and you will find yourself unable to edit this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then how am i supposed to communicate...

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).

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

Request reason:

on the other issue you blocked me for, adding unsourced info, i gave you a source. Also when Dave reported me, he claimed my edits were racist, yet he made almost the same comment on the talk page of cantonese people, about northern chinese. And the reason for my acctions on Dave's userpage is because i suspect he is a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

The actions of others don't have any bearing on your own request for unblock. east718 // talk // email // 22:18, 2 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Same as the above reason, the reason that his actions are relevant to my blocking is because i was blocked for harrasing that user. all i was doing was warning him about his blatant sockpuppetry and breaking of wikipedia rules.

Decline reason:

Your reason for harassing is as invalid now as it was at your first unblock request. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point will not be tolerated.— Kralizec! (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (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.

File:HuangDiInManchuScript.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HuangDiInManchuScript.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nm uighur.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nm uighur.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:WikipediaInManchu.png

The file File:WikipediaInManchu.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Smp manchu.gif

The file File:Smp manchu.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese scripts has been nominated for renaming

Category:Chinese scripts has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Remsense聊 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]