User talk:Ivanzhourocks

March 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Arunachal Pradesh. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. This is currently recognized as part of India - please stop changing it to be in Tibet until you can get the rest of the world to agree with your point of view. noq (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--well, last time I check, you doesn't represent the rest of the world.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Arunachal Pradesh. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Arunachal Pradesh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Arunachal Pradesh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivanzhourocks. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 18:57, 20 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Arunachal_Pradesh is an disputed area. The first paragraph bears no citation nor evidence. Let me stress again, nobody shall dictate what is correct/incorrect on Wikipedia. Allow different opinions.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is confirmed sockpuppetry. Kinu ^t/_c 03:57, 21 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Pardon me. In the first appeal, I didn't quite understand what was sockpuppetry. Here goes my reasoning: (1) Talent Girl is not an account registered/managed by me; (2)She is a mature, smart, independent women. What expressed by her is from her own willing (3) We are in the same office so it could be we share the same IP but I am not 100% sure; (4) I cannot have someone backing my view? My opposite side has people backed him. Is him blocked?

Decline reason:

Whether that's true or not, the fact is we treat multiple single-purpose editors behaving in the same manner as though they are one user. See WP:MEAT. As a result, sockpuppetry sanctions still apply. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:57, 21 March 2013 (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.