User talk:GansuKing

December 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ma Bufang, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Shrigley (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GansuKing, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi GansuKing! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Eteethan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ma Bufang with this edit, without 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. Thanks. Eteethan(talk) 17:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ma Bufang with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Eteethan(talk) 17:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Your sole edits to Wikipedia have been to push your point of view at Ma Bufang. Should you wish to edit constructively you can request an unblock that explains how you will edit collaboratively. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is to Eteethan & Ponyo, Your messege and reason is not specific. The deleted part have no concrete refrenced. To Ponyo, By your block, it mean you support providing Wikipedia with inaccurate information and sometimes there are no references at all. The accuracy of the reference must be valid. These are not my openion. It is facts. GansuKing lk:GansuKing#top|talk]]) 08:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ponyo,

It is clearly you haven't utilize Wikipedia procedure regarding block as per the following action per Wikipedia rules: " If the tendentious editor is using sources, but if the sources are poor or misinterpreted: Do not go to ANI yet. Review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. File a report at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if appropriate. Continue attempts to engage the editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate. If only two editors are involved, seek a Third Opinion. If more editors are involved, try a Request for comment." you didn't do any of the above. Please advise how you use your authority of blocking editors?

GansuKing (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, Ponyo your block action is Against Wikipedia procedure of Dealing with disruptive editors.

GansuKing (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ponyo, We request to remove your block ASAP. In addition, Before you block any editor, Please follow procedure of Wikipedia and ensure yours adhere to the rules. We are not only here to build Wikipedia. But to provide strong info with many valid references. In conclusion, It is your call, but next time I suggest you read the reference before you do a block. GansuKing (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eteethan &Ponyo, kindly advise regarding the above. SincerelyGansuKing (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC) GansuKing (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Ponyo, This is a kindly reminder.We request to remove your block ASAP. In addition, Before you block any editor, Please follow procedure of Wikipedia and ensure yours adhere to the rules. We are not only here to build Wikipedia. But to provide strong info with many valid references. In conclusion, It is your call, but next time I suggest you read the reference before you do a block.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2015 (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.

GansuKing (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2015

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason is that the administrator Ponyo blocked me and stated: (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) while in the article of: Ma Bufang, I checked the paragraph and went to the reference to be sure it is reliable but what I found is different and not as it was written. for example: if you take a look at the Tibet section you will find that it was written in a way that doesn't reflect the reference or it is altered. Also, I added the name of the Author with book in some paragraph to state that it is the author point of view. My question is regarding some paragraph with no reference at all and it is still existed in: Ma Bufang article such as (Genghis Khan Shrine), you can see clearly that it doesn't include any reference. Being editing in one or sole article doesn't mean I am not improving Wikipedia. I believe the reason is because I removed paragraphs that didn't had reliable source or reference. Instead, I was surprised that I was blocked without any notice. The main problem is that these paragraphs in Ma Bufang article lack solid/reliable source and therefore I deleted it. Please review my concern and that we are here not to be disruptive but rather to work together as team to create a valid and accurate information and not gossip. Is it a mistake to add accurate reference or add the correct Author? Or book? Please advise? GansuKing (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked if you're just here to advance a point-of-view on a subject without consensus from the community. I see no evidence so far that you are willing to edit collaboratively and cooperatively with others. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:34, 15 December 2015 (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.