User talk:30ChuaPhaiLaTet

Welcome

Hello, 30ChuaPhaiLaTet, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Cẩm Giàng, Bắc Kạn, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Phu Bai (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Phu Bai (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Phu Bai (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Phu Bai (disambiguation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Phu Bai (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mỹ Thuận

Hello, you must read the edit history of Mỹ Thuận to understand why action has been taken by other editors. Do not undo the redirection again because it has policy-based reasons. You will see the following explanations in the edit history: Changed disambig to a redirect in accordance with WP:G14: "If a disambiguation page links to only one article ... it should be changed to a redirect." (by P,TO 19104) and per the last action, the disambiguation page is not necessary if it only points to ONE Wikipedia article; it will be appropriate if all the other locations get their own articles in the future (by me). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and suggestion

Xin chào, và cam ơn về công việc của bạn creating stubs about towns in Vietnam. One suggestion going forward would be for you to please link articles about towns to their corresponding articles on Vietnamese Wikipedia. You can do this by clicking the "Edit links" button under "Languages" in the left sidebar, and then following the prompts that pop up. I've done it for a few of your recent article creations, but other editors reviewing your contributions may be more hesitant to make links to viWiki if they don't speak the language at all. Note that this should only be done for articles, not disambiguation pages. Let me know if you need any help. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Then don't add a sea of non article links to a nav template. If they're communes red link them. A template with only one central link helps nobody.† Encyclopædius 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill can you do something about this? This guy said I was a sock, meanwhile he couldn't prove it 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of checkuser would suggest that he has proven it. I don't have CU permissions and thus can't verify or otherwise take any action here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill, we're talking about some serious longterm socking here--and even without a Tobias Conradi connection, we have a year's worth of disruptive edits (unverified, unexplained, unnecessary) from three accounts and hundreds of IPs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not "this guy": please don't be such a binarist. I would have expected more ... latitude from someone with a diacritical hangup. Second, the moment that I get a totally different kind of comment from User:PhutThu89 and User:ChanComThemPho, I'll reconsider. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, 30Chua: I did do an account check and these other two accounts are, of course, a perfect match--as are the hundreds if not thousands of IP edits you've been making since at least August 2019. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2020 (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).

30ChuaPhaiLaTet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you explain this more clearly? First: *I claimed that those two accounts are also me. But the reason those accounts exist is because I forgot my password twice, and also didn't have a recover email to recover them so I have no other choice but to create a new one. This is not forbidden according to WP:SOCKLEGIT. However, I can guarantee that I absolutely have no idea who Tobias Conradi is Also, at this point, I can guarantee that I'm not using those two accounts anymore, and also got my password written down to make sure I don't forget it *I made IP edits but they are not disruptive. Does either this or this look disruptive to you? *Finally, those 2 accounts and IPs has never been involved in a same discussion. And most important, the CPI is not yet completed and the only thing he proved was those 2 accounts are matched to this one, but never actually proved that they are matched to Tobias Conradi (which was why he blocked me). After all, I apologize for thr fact that I didn't read the rules about using multiple accounts (which I mentioned above that it is not going to happen again) and IP edits. 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, if I had nothing better to do with my time I could write a whole lot about this, such as explaining why, while one of the new accounts you admit to possibly might have been used purely because of a forgotten password, the other one absolutely unambiguously wasn't, and I could also explain why it is abundantly clear that you have indulged in abuse of multiple accounts, and that whether or not one of them was "Tobias Conradi" really doesn't matter. However, the essential point is that you have done enormous amounts of damaging editing, and appear likely to continue in the same way, so unblocking would certainly not benefit the project. JBW (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (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 have three open unblock requests. That's abusive. Which one unblock request do you want reviewed? You are free to remove all three and make one new one, or modify any of the existing three, deleting the other two. Or you are welcome to indicate which one of the three you'd like to leave open, and we can remove the other two for you. But stop making new unblock requests when you have one (or, worse, more than one) already open. It just wastes everyone's time. --Yamla (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, please keep the last one for me. My apologies for creating three, since I didn't read the rules carefully 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! --Yamla (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, please take time to review my case (also what I just added in the request above). I was suspected to be a sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi, this come with a CPI but as far as I'm concerned, at the moment I got blocked it is not even completed and no conclusion had been made. Is this right? 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the one who first suggested a link to Tobias Conradi, I'm going to point out the quacking is so loud I'm getting tinnitus. See here, here, and (delving further back) here and here for what set off my alarms. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights so what are you planning to do if it ends up that I have no connection to Tobias Conradi (since no conclusion or verification has been made yet but I already got blocked for it). 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, this is totally ridiculous! I used three accounts, and have many IP edits, and my reasons have been explained above.

First of all, I never used all three accounts as well as IPs to participate in any same discussion to create a consensus (or something similar).

Secondly, you mentioned that those edits made by me were unverified, unexplained, unnecessary then give me an example. Does either this or this look disruptive to you?

Finally, you never actually proved that I have any connection to Tobias Conradi (but this is what you blocked me for, as explained in the summary). 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming an exception under WP:SOCKLEGIT. That part of the policy says, "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages". Please show where you declared the accounts under WP:SOCKLEGIT, prior to your block. --Yamla (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla that is why I mentioned that I haven't yet known all the rules, thus not knowing that I have to indicate the fact that I have multiple accounts. There are too many rules here, and they are also too long. Thus I certainly do not know every single lines (at least by now, as I'm just a regular user, not administrators that will have to deal with them more often). You will see that most of those IP edits occurred before I create my accounts, and some of them occurred while I forgot my password and haven't yet created a new one. 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla let me paraphrase everything here.

Drmies conducted a CPI because he suspected that I have connection to Tobias Conradi
He hasn't yet made a conclusion about whether I have any connection to Tobias Conradi. But what he found was something unexpected, that is I have 2 other accounts.

I have to indicate that by now, the investigation has not yet been completed, but he blocked me and indicated in the summary that I was the sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi, as if the investigation has been closed. Is this right? 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm editor claims to know now the rules, and for some reason creates three accounts at the same time, and makes edits that from the get-go signal a pretty decent knowledge of all kinds of Wikipedian intricacies, and... No, that is all too difficult to swallow. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]