User talk:Lennytran
Lennytran, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Lennytran! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC) |
June 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm C.Fred. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Bảo Đại seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bảo Đại. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Your "Reader discretion is advised" disclaimer makes it clear that you are editing with an agenda regarding this article. I strongly suggest you refrain from editing the article and discuss the situation at Talk:Bảo Đại to see if there is support for any of your changes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bảo Đại shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
unblock
[edit]
Lennytran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The information on the page I contributed was not correct nor it is neutral (Bao Dai wiki)! The original information presented in the page is expressed via a certain political point of view, while I respect that point of view (which I did not alter in anyway), I merely presented more information that was sourced from books and material from actors related to the page. Bao Dai was a controversial political figure due to the facts that all the literature/material that written about him was written by or based on literature/material written/sponsored by the politicians that actually overthrew him. Most if not all of these reading materials are either war/political propaganda or with hidden agenda. Let put it this way, if you live in North Korea and write a book praising the American what do you think will happen? So, it is safe to assume that all of the "historians" residing in N Korea have to write books praising their leaders, while condemning the oppositions, and what happen if other researchers use these books to write their version of "history"?? This is what happening here, sources from Bao Dai wiki are biased and/or based on other biased sources, therefore, can only at best described as a point of view. Such information as this is undermining the integrity of wikipedia if it is to be left alone! Again I did not delete any of it, all I did was merely presenting a different angle using different sources that directly related to the page (Bao Dai). I feel that I am being unfairly judged and barred from further contributions. Lennytran (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You must not engage in an edit war, even if you are right - everyone thinks they're right, don't they? If you are engaged in a dispute about article content, you need to hold a discussion on the article's talk page and seek a consensus (click that link). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
Lennytran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wasnt aware of the talk page until I was blocked, now if you can at least unblock me from using the talk page so that I can use that to discuss. I thought you can only talk to each others. Thanks. Lennytran (talk) 3:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
Decline reason:
It is not ethnically possible to unblock you only for talk pages. You were blocked because of the wp:edit warring, but you have not addressed that issue in your unblock request at all. You have to show us that you understand the reason you were blocked and to convince us that the block is no longer needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
Lennytran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
@Vanjagenije: I did mention that I didnt know there was a talk page for discussions, at first I saw the link talk next to each user I thought that by talk we were only limited to that. Other than that I am not sure by addressing "the issue" mean. Look, I am new to wikipedia, I am just ordinary pc user, I am no expert in programming, and I am only learning as I use this site more.Lennytran (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No longer blocked - block is expired. SQLQuery me! 03:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
El_C 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It seems more than likely the other account is connected to you, but that doesn't change anything as to both of your identical disruptive edits. Point is, you can't argue with the article prose and state "[b]efore finishing this article, readers should consider a few things:" in a section title Remarks—Wikipedia articles do not work this way. If you were more than a single purpose account you would know that by now. For now, you have the option of figuring out how to convey your content according to Wikipedia standards on the article talk page (which may or may not be possible, but you are welcome to try) or for both accounts to be indefinitely blocked. Well, for now the page is protected, so you have no choice, but in the future, these are your options. El_C 18:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
____________________________
Please refrain from editing for now, even after the article protection status has been released.LeThaiTo (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- If both of you are actually two separate individuals, you can each participate on the article talk page right now. I just don't know that editors will give you the same weight as the combined opinion of two editors, seeing that your single purpose seems identical. Because of that, it is difficult to not think that you two, if not the same person, at least are somehow connected, seeing you only edit the one article plus the one addition. But I suppose it's possible, if implausible. El_C 01:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Like I told LeThaiTo, the section on my user talk page regarding Bảo Đại is located here. Your comment to me and my reply to it are both located there. Thanks. El_C 02:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)