User talk:Helloterran

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Helloterran! I am Otolemur crassicaudatus and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of anti-cnn

I'm afraid I disagree. Firstly please peruse Wikipedia:Notability (web) which gives guidelines on what websites are notable, which this does not appear to be. Secondly the Wikipedia article was a rant against various organisations accusing them of "lies" etc (just like you put on my talk page) which is an attack. Remember Wikipedia is Neutral. I'm afraid I speedy deleted the article as an attack quite properly, and I would doubt that the website would meet the above notability criteria where it to be re-created neutrally. However, you can re-create that article should you wish, but I can't gurantee it will pass a deletion discussion. Pedro : Chat 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anti-cnn

Hi - if you are going to make additions to this article please ensure that they

are coherent
are not biased
and that they use the correct reference format - see the current version

Thankyou. Black Kite 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again - please stop introducing errors and unsourced information into the article - it will be removed. Black Kite 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-cnn that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Chris! _ct 06:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Jing

Hello, Helloterran. The section of torch relay needs to be improved. There are several sentences talking about the attack by protesters. I think that part needs to be smoothed. Thanks!--Jingandteller (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

May I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? Only because you follow the official CCP line that Falun Gong is a religious sect, doesnt mean that this should make it into Wikipedia articles. This source is far more reliable than all the propaganda outlets from the PRC. Novidmarana (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also wondering what you are doing here on Wikipedia as the sole purpose of your account according to your edit history seems to be to make the Jin Jing article conform to the offical party line of the CCP. Novidmarana (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you to look a little further into my contribution list? It's because of your endless vandalism of this article that I have spent so much time keeping it recently.

Actually I am wondering whether you are a sockpuppet. And calling my edits vandalism is quite uncivil, but maybe you say that because you prefer an article that makes Jin Jing look like a hero, whereas as she has in reality only symbol of the worst of Chinese nationalism and xenophobia. Novidmarana (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your words only reflect your instinctive reaction against anyhting that do not conform to your paranoid bias.Helloterran (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know my paranoid bias. Just keep up the good work, and continue whining about how unfairly Western media treats poor, innocent China and the smiling angel in the wheelchair. I have to puke now, but forgive me I had more than enough of that propanda shit already back in Romania. Novidmarana (talk) 05

21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And I can't help noticing your intention to setup a de facto censorship on every pro-china media. You are totally allowed to believe that everything I say is a lie, but you are not allowed to impose that believe to readers of an wiki article. Helloterran (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know quite a bit about wikipedia policies, are you sure that you are not a sockpuppet?? I have no problems with pro-China media, as they are a good source to see how bad Chinese nationalism is at the moment. But I expect that contrary views of realiable source are not censored away as you did repeatedly on this article. Wikipedia is not the place for displaying the highly distorted view of Jin Jing as an "angel" and refute that she is also a willing propaganda tool for the CCP to ignite nationalism and xenophobia. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm doing is to counter your attempt to portray every prochina editor a sock puppet and every prochina media a government mouthpiece. Together we are create sort of a equilibrium on how the world perceive this incident---which is not neccessarily close to truth. Your attitude towards my side is similar to mine to yours, what's different is I know your kind far better than you know me and my country. Helloterran (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is really a ridiculous statement as only your edit history makes me think that your are a) a new editor who obsessively engages in edit-warring on one specific article and are b) far more familiar with Wikipedia policies than the typical new editor is. The rest of your statement is not even worth a comment. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah,here come you again. Nearly every edit I did to the Jin Jing article was given proper reason in the talk page, even when you and your partners undid my work I always tried to give more elaberated on why your reasoning is laughable.Unfurtunately you often fail to do the same---it seems that you tend to base your perception of everything on what you already belief, not the event itself. You tend to classify everyone you see on the first glance, what you spent most time is merely finding excuses for your already formulated conclusion. Are you capable of anything other than ungrounded speculation? I'm new to wiki, does that mean anything to you? I like here because I find the rules here suitable for in-depth (and eventually non-biased) discussion, and at the same time make it very difficult for guys like you to spread rumours and lies.Helloterran (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. I'm not taking any sides here, I just want to make you aware of the policy on revert-warring. nneonneo ^talk 05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. Novidmarana was also warned recently. Soon, though, the article may be protected to prevent further vandalism while the problems are worked out on the talk page. I realize this is a very contentious issue, so I hope it can be worked out to a satisfactory conclusion. nneonneo ^talk 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jmlk 1 7 06:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Jing

Hi, could you have a look at my proposal at Talk:Jin_Jing#Proposal_to_keep_the_article_as_is and weigh in with your opinion? Thanks, Novidmarana (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Sichuan earthquake

Can you please join this debate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A troll IP Special:Contributions/68.73.94.131 have made this revert. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hint

You are free to think that I am just sinophobe, but sometimes it is wiser to keep thoughts for oneself. Slightly amused, yours truly, Novidmarana (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009 Urumqi riots

There appears to be some disagreement over what to say about the Rebiya Kadeer photo controversy, so please voice your opinion in the discussion at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#More POV-oriented edits. Changing the article directly when other editors have disagreed with those changes could be the beginnings of edit warring, and we are trying to avoid edit wars at this article. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please discuss things at the talk page, rather than edit warring within the article. You have reverted again, but you haven't edited the talk page in at least 24 hours, and haven't left any comments about this particular issue. More discussion would be helpful. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert like this again. I see you have joined the discussion at the talk page, which is great, but now you shouldn't keep reverting until a clear agreement is reached at the talk page. I don't want to see you get blocked because, even though I haven't usually agreed with you, I see that you are a productive editor and are trying to improve the article (i.e., you're not a troll like some of the people who have edited there). But unfortunately, if you keep reverting then someone might report you at the edit warring noticeboard and you could get blocked, and I wouldn't have any way to stop it. I hope you can stick to the discussion for now and avoid edit warring so that you can continue to contribute productively. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I just saw this revert, looks like you but was made by an IP. I really hope you just did this by accident (had forgotten to log in or something). If you purposely edited from an IP to continue edit warring, you will be temporarily blocked and I will have no way to stop it. Please don't edit from the IP again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Just FYI, in this edit you restored a paragraph that had been removed after discussion at Talk:July_2009_Ürümqi_riots#Media_gaffes_2. The consensus currently is not to include it. Please read the arguments presented in the discussion and respond there. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "consensus" if many people who contributed to that paragraph, including me, is not even notified before it's made? I have stated my own reason for adding it in revision history page. Helloterran (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you gave a reason; the discussion I linked is full of reasons from numerous editors. In your edit summary you asked others to "Provide sufficient and convinicing reasoning with your edit"; that reasoning is all provided in the discussion I linked, which you apparently have not read. You should not be reverting like this when multiple editors have agreed not to include it for now; Wikipedia operates by consensus, which means that no matter how right you believe you are you should not be reverting unless you can get other editors to support your edits as well. You have already been warned once about edit warring; please do not continue, or you will risk being blocked.

As a side note, calling good-faith editors vandals like you did here is not constructive and doesn't help any of us work on improving the article. I suggest you read Wikipedia's vandalism policy before accusing editors who have done nothing but disagree with you. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not insult others with remarks such as "who are you to make judgment/" thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC) rash[reply]

Pls read the definition of consensus. If many editors who contributed to the article did not even have a chance to participate in your short discussion due to different local time and you hastenly declare that a "consensus" has be formed, it's only against the wiki rules. I quote: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community. Helloterran (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is pretty irrelevant; it refers to overturning community consensus, ie, changing things like project-wide policies and guidelines that have been discussed by hundreds of editors—not about small additions in articles.

And even if it were relevant...all it really proves is that there is not yet consensus for or against your additions. Lack of consensus means, in turn, that you should not be reverting like this—which brings us back to where we started.

I'm not interested in arguing here about what consensus is and what it is not. Just stop edit warring and I'll be happy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious. I have invested much time in the paragraph and many other editors have made contribution. Suddenly someone rmv the entire paragraph "w/o consensus having been reached". When I try to question his reason you show up and call me "edit warring". Show me the logic. Is it a "first move, alway win" strategy? Helloterran (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the fate this "small addition" simply is not small enough for a handful of IDs on the talk page to decide. Many more editors have been involved in its editing and your alleged "consensum" is certainly not adequately exposed. Helloterran (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have invested much time in the paragraph and many other editors have made contribution. WP:OWN violation right here.

And the fate this "small addition" simply is not small enough for a handful of IDs on the talk page to decide. Since Wikipedia is based on "handful of IDs" in its consenses building process, maybe we should shut Wikipedia down in order to improve its consenses building process.

Anyway, just my two cents...who am I to judge. Jim101 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're ridiculous off topic. My only point is, if you'd like to reach a valid consensus and lock the current edition, you'll have to wait until sufficient IDs who have been involved in the editing of this paragraph have agreed to support you. The time of the start and end of the discussion here obviouly do not meet the "adquate exposure" rule. Helloterran (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Two people have edited the paragraph: you, and me. Even after editing it, I agreed with editors who said it should be removed.

The fact that you were the first person to add the paragraph doesn't mean you own it. It says clearly at the bottom of the page every time you click the "edit" button: If you do not want your writing to be edited... then do not submit it here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget me, I hosed down the horrible POV wordings before I discuss it with Rjanag about relevance. Jim101 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Jim :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] You're edit warring again. Starting a discussion at the talk page like you did was the right thing to do, and I'm glad you did it. But reverting a second time before giving anyone a chance to respond to that discussion was not the right thing to do. Please don't edit war. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that issue I believe it's their responsibility to start a section on talk page and reach a consensus before editing, instead of entirely rmving the newly added section with some joke-like excuse.Helloterran (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Many of your edits are having a side-effect of messing up the ref formatting, which causes references to break and display big red "citation errors" in the text; see, for example, this. I don't know if you're editing using an external program (like Microsoft Word) or what, but please be careful with your edits and check your edited text (preferably using the "show preview" button) before clicking save. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Helloterran. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Helloterran. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]