User talk:PatCheng

Talk Page Civility

Can you try not to think that anyone is racist? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but your comments are just extremely trollish and uncivilized. Be very touchy what you really say if you are worried about having your comments on talk pages moderated. — Dark Insanity 03:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, PatCheng, welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know about a post concerning your edits at the administrator's noticeboard: here. Assuming the IPs identified are connected to you, you appear to be engaging in some unproductive and fairly trivial edit wars, and it would be courteous of you to seek to resolve these conflicts more peacefully through dialouge. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I've reverted your removal on Communist Party of China as it is not a "pro-Falungong" section. Rather, although it might have neutrality problems (although I do not see it), discussing it is legitimate unless you advocate undue weight, and the CCP has received widespread criticism for its suppression of the Falungong. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front

Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front looks like it is headed towards an edit war due to a change that you made. You might want to check it out. --Descendall 03:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please refrain from personal attacks as shown in this commentary [1]. Also please review policies regarding civility. Thanks.--MONGO 07:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls

I just wanted to say that you've totally messed up nearly ALL subcategories of this one after I've spent weeks trying to get them systematized. Just so you know. --Koveras 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite nice that you show intrest in this category but let me give you some advice first. Don't try to recategorize the entire articles. It's not needed. I have already done more than enough. Start writing some articles instead to fill the categories. That is what we need, not recategorization. No offence. --Koveras 11:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Outstanding work reducing trivial fictional star wars cruft. That makes four of us fighting a good fight! Deckiller 11:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all your outstanding merges...I know it's strange to grant this to an IP address, but make sure to create an account and post it!

Nice work with the merges! Deckiller 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital ship list

I plan on making a list for starships, primarily capital ships. However, what do you think this should cover? Just capital ships, or all "other" forms of starship that are not support craft, starfighters, air craft, or aquatic vehicles? I was figuring that we could have a capital ship list (for things like the corellian corvette and banking clan cruiser and all), and another list for "named" craft. There's a lot we can do, hence why I suggested the project as a way to clean up and organize.

Wikiproject

We're planning on starting a WikiProject for Starwars with the hope of creating a gathering place (in other words, enhancing communication) so that we can merge, cleanup, remove cruft, the whole nine yards. The proposal section is here: Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects. Thanks, and I look forward to working with you. Deckiller 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hey; I would like to see the project start tomorrow and develop through the weekend. I want to see of maru is interested, since he provides balance to all of us mergists and whatnot, and usually has solid ideas in discussions. Deckiller 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project

The StarWars WikiProject will be starting soon, here is what I have down so far: User:Deckiller/WikiProject Star Wars. We have 7-9 people interested so far. Deckiller 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morrowind article

Could you help me expand on the scrib article? Evan Robidoux 16:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure--PatCheng 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject up

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars. Thanks! Deckiller 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard :) Deckiller 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Birch article

Thanks for cleaning up (reverting, generally) the POV information in the article. I've been following it, but somehow that stuff got up and I didn't do anything about it. So I was glad to see your edits. John Broughton 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just a notice; if you want to merge the non-stubs, I recommend putting a notice on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do so people can discuss it for a day or so before merging. Thanks! Deckiller 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Purported Cults

Your comment from my user page:

The Communist Party of China a cult? Please, have some common sense. Political parties are not "cults", especially if the source comes from a purported cult itself.

Just as the title says, it is a list of purported cults. The Epoch Times is a major newspaper. They are anti-CCP, true. On the other hand, many of the other sources that are listed on the page are also against the movement they're defining as a cult (though now I see that the list is cleaned up a bit, which is probably good). But adding CCP to the list is not a value judgement in itself. The Nine Commentaries[2], an influental publication, is just making allegations of its cult-like characteristics, and that is enough to make it a purported cult.

On the other hand, that also depends on criteria that the editors of the article are free to dispute. I agree that it might be better to keep it exclusive. Really, I was only making a suggestion.

I replied here because I'm genuinely interested: what is your criteria for defining a "cult" and a "sect"? Is there any difference between the semantics of these terms? Do they have to involve a transcendent belief system? What kind of belief systems, on the other hand, cannot be defined as cults? I've been discussing this with many people, and the question is not simple at all. I think there's some kind of a (multidimensional?) continuum between a full-blown dangerous cult and a normal and acceptable movement with particular ideas. But what is the essential demarcation in your opinion? Regards, ---Olaf Stephanos 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not with the claim, but with the source. The Epoch Times, is a widely read newspaper, but it's not a "main" news source such as the BBC, NY Times etc, and it's widely known for it's pro-Falun Gong anti-CCP bias. If the BBC or some qualified cult expert define the CCP as a "cult", then claiming that the CCP as a cult does have merit. There are also some ultra-leftist anti-Bush publications that claim that The Bush government is a cult, or Christian fundamentalists claiming the Catholic Church is a "cult". But Wikipedia isn't a place to report such ideals just because source X said so. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. --PatCheng 08:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer characters

Hi. I thought maybe Colonel Burton and Jarmen Kell should be sorted by the first word, since the second word is not their last name, and there's no one that refers to Jarmen Kell as Kell, is there? - Eagle^a^mⁿ 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Selected Voting

Make sure to vote for the selected article for next week at Portal:Star Wars/Vote. Jedi6 03:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Collaboration of the week

Make sure to vote for the Star Wars Collaboration of the week for next week at Wikipedia:Star Wars Collaboration of the week. Jedi6 04:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars collaboration

File:Star Wars Tie-Fighter-Vaders.jpg

You showed support for the Star Wars Collaboration of the week.
This week Ewok was selected to be improved to featured article status. We hope you can contribute.

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 14% for major edits and 91% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 11 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, we both created The New Rebellion at the same time! I merged in the info you put, including the infobox, which looks great. Deckiller 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GCOTW

Hi, since you've done some work on the Dune computer and video games article, you might want to help out at the current GCOTW, Dune II. Cheers, jaco plane 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, nevermind that, I see you've already been working on it :) jaco plane 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft III units

Wow, you work fast. Hahahaha. --Destron Commander 07:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Buren --> Fallout 3 Move

I disagree with the move of Van Buren (Fallout) to Fallout 3. Van Buren is a cancelled game that was in development by Black Isle Studios. F3 is in development by Bethesda. The designers at Bethesda have said the story will not be similar and F3 will be a multi-platform release. They are two seperate games, and should be looked at as such. However, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Fallout 3 can serve as a temporary redirect until more news is released on Van Buren. Thoughts? Miguel Cervantes 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the Force

What is wrong with the book titles? Jedi6 -(need help?) 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea but that doesn't really fit Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Jedi6 -(need help?) 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when you moved Sacrifice (novel) I realized that they should be called title (novel) instead of title (book), so I moved them already. Except for Exile which has a redirect in the way that will have to be done with a request move. Jedi6 -(need help?) 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Shore

Hi. I see you have replaced a section of the Howard Shore article that was removed by a 1-3 vote (include your 1 vote to keep it). I'm not sure if that really qualifies as a consensus to replace the section (then again, Wikipedia is freely editable... but we'd like to build the articles based on consensus). Nationalparks 05:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon

Thanks for your comment. Had you actually read what I said, you will note that I didn't say that "all people who support China are Chinese nationalists". I said that the people at the Nanking Massacre page (who don't listen to reason) are Chinese nationalists. ADDED IN A LATER EDIT: I will also note that "nationalist" is not a derogatory term, unlike what you called me: "Holocaust denier" and "stooge of the Jap government". (Please also note that "Jap" is in and of itself an offensive epithet.) Further, I fail to see how I have said anything that would make me a "holocaust denier".

If you post insults on my discussion page again I will report you.

(I've also removed the words "goddamn" and "bullshit" in my subsequent edit. Calling someone a "Holocaust denier" is a good way to infuriate them, but I've calmed down now.)

I would suggest that you apologize for what you said and retract your own use of the word "Jap", which says far more about you than me.

Cheers. Bueller 007 09:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with claims of "Chinese nationalists", I apologise for the comments I made. --PatCheng 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout

Hey PatCheng. First off, thanks for your work splitting up the Fallout page. However, that page (Fallout (computer game series)) can still use some work. So, I made some changes, which you can look at here. Looking at your User Page, you seem to be involved in all kinds of video game articles. I was hoping you could help us get Fallout to where it should be. Thanks. Miguel Cervantes 19:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. Some things push people's buttons sometimes. I know I've said some things I regretted when people reverted my posts and whatnot. Have a good one. Bueller 007 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Falun Gong was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 07:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and stuff

Just to let you know, many of your edits are simply deleting because they sdon't have sources cited. Try to add {{Fact}} instead...it'll save a lot of trouble, especially when sources CAN be cited. Be a little more frugal with your "Edit this Page" button. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 01:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Stop personal attack. Such as your swearing of "idiot" and your groundless statement that "I never set foot in China" and other bold words to gush your spleen. Fnhddzs 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know it was you. I apologise.--PatCheng 07:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you refered to China as a "totalitarian dictatorship", which I find totally offensive.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong page

Friend,

I notice that you have been trying to coverup material related to the presecution. I really dont know why you do that... but I know people are being tortured to death in China and families are left devastated. The more the truth is covered up, the more people die.. arent we responsible for the death of innocent people if we intentionally cover it up? CCP is not China.. It is innocent Chinese people, people like you and me, the CCP is killing.

The stories of suicide and all are utter nonsense.. if you knew the truth behind the so called suicide you'd tremble in horror at what the CCP is doing..Please think about it- there are over 50 million practitioners outside China has even one committed suicide? Had even a single falun gong practitioner committed "suicide" before 1999?

We must be true to our own conscience. How could we support and coverup the killing and torture of thousands? Arent we responsible then for those deaths and the heart-wrenching suffering of their families?

Dilip rajeev 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:YINever

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. YINever

Right, considering that you're the sockpuppet of TJive and User:141.153.74.246. I thought you left Wikipedia for good instead of using anon ips to cover your track.--PatCheng 06:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued vandalism

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:The Epoch Times. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. YINever

Who are you to give me a warning anyway? FUCK OFF!--PatCheng 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User:YINever, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. YINever 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the revert war, and I'd like to share my view before anyone gets blocked:

It seems to me unjustified to remove the content from the talk page,Talk:The Epoch Times. The suggestion raised may be purely malicious or unfounded, and if it's not a mere repetition of what is already there, please simply leave it and argue why it in your opinion is nonsense.
YINever and PatCheng seem to both have strong opinions on the wikipedia article undergoing the revert war. YINever is therefore not in a credible neutral position to deal out vandalism warnings, except for his userpage over which he reigns supreme. I advise administrators to disregard the former warnings by YINever.

Jens Nielsen 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Word of Suggestion

You had best moderate your language. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise

When "RevolverOcelotX" has had his quota of reverts for the day, PatCheng comes to the rescue to put him over the top. YINever 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on The Epoch Times. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. YINever 00:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sockpuppet. --PatCheng 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Despite frequent requests from other editors not to launch personal attacks on other users, you have continued to do so, including editing their user pages in a negative way, and then swearing at them, leading to a 24hr blcok .When the block expires, please refrain from launching further attacks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am citing the two derogatory edits (WP:NPA)that you made to YINever's page and then the obvious expletive on your user talk page. I can also see that many people have complained at the top of the page also about accusing others of being racist, etc and that you have previously beenn warned many times about abusing other editors. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person started it and provoked me by refering to me as a communist spy and simply edits articles to fit his views, without prior discussion. Previously the same person insulted my family and called them "fascists" for being Chinese.--PatCheng 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite them and I will look into it.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YINever is a user from GameFAQs, who has made derogatory comments against me there. He called my grandfather a "fascist" for simply participating in the Korean War, and that somehow I'm a communist spy and stalinist because of my Chinese heritage. Here in Wikipedia the first thing he does is posting a userbox on User:YINever [3], saying "This user does not kowtow to Beijing nor to its sycophants", subtly suggesting that I'm somehow a sycophant of the Beijing government. I find such labelling very offensive to my character and deleted them in anger. Not only this, he restored vandalism from Talk:The Epoch Times, in which a supporter of the paper deleted all of the talk page and replaced it with his accusations that "anyone who criticised Epoch Times is a internet spy" [4] [5]. I and the admin Kungfuadam reverted his vandalism of pages on the two accounts [6][7], yet YINever restored the person's vandalism that has been deleted by an admin, calling it "valuable, helpful comment" [8]. The person has started edit wars on the pages you protected, including The Epoch Times, Ladies in White, Freedom fighter and Varela Project, often deleting large sections while adding his POV into articles, such that Cuban government becoming "regime", political opponents becoming "dissidents", and countering becoming "harassing" [9]. He also started to add warnings to User talk pages of me and RevolverOcelotX, while ignoring ones on his own page. This ended up as a revert war where each party is simply giving each other warnings, the meanings of which are depleted.--PatCheng 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly regarding mutual claims from you and YINever that you met at GameFAQs, clashed over politics and then mutual claims of Wikipedia stalking, a user conduct WP:RFC may be appropriate as it seems that there is a serious matter which needs to be resolved. Secondly, the comment by YINever, in my opinion does not provide justification for aggressively editing another's page, as although I disagree with POV userboxes and express POv on my userpage, I see many people, including admins who have a userbox "opposing George W. Bush", and I can't recall them being deleted or changed by GWB supporters. As to the content, it appears clear that the context of "Beijing" is that he will not be giving ground in edit wars to what he perceives to be CCP members/supporters, which I can't see as a personal attack, as is not about how he feels about Chinese people or culture, nor is he questioning the character and integrity of a communist, but that he strongly disagrees with communist viewpoints and will not allow what he thinks is CCP-pov to stand. The last part, about the editing style is not relevant as it does not pertain how the contributors have been treating one another.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is grounds for stalking, then action may be taken against YINever. Can you show me the forum posts which indicate that there are grudges and stalking?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

{{unblock|Fails to see the grounds of blocking. The problem editor harassed me by posting references that suggest me as "communist spy" and "stooge of the Chinese government". Provoked into an edit war.}}

Sorry you fail to see the grounds, you were warned before the block came into effect but failed to modify your behaviour. WP:3RR is about stopping the disruption of edit warring, you claim to have been provoked into an edit war, so you accept that you were edit warring. Edit warring is unaccepable, if you provoked you are expected to be mature enough to deal with it in a constructive manner. Unblock denied. --pgk^(talk) 06:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was blocked because of personal attacks. I was not edit warring, but reverting radical changes a user made to many politics related pages.--PatCheng 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request has already been denied. Stop adding that template or this page will be protected. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah whatever. The person who reviewed though I was edit warring, when in fact I was blocked for personal attacks.--PatCheng 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the block relative to your statement amount being provoked into an edit war, I agreed you were edit warring and thus a [[WP:3RR] block would be reasonable. I didn't review your block relative to personal attacks since that appeared to have already been covered. --pgk^(talk) 06:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU

Well, the CheckUser is there, and until then they are presumed innocent. The only way a person can be banned for socks without a checkuser is if they are self-proclaimed, are going against consensus or they are banned. User:Jason Gastrich got into trouble and was consensus was against him at Louisiana Baptist University, and after that everyone who did the same edit as he did was indefbanned as they were either socks or impersonators having a laugh. Until there is a consensus at all these disputes, suspected sockpuppets will not be banned without RFCU confirmation.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Magdoff and espionage

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

It is not a personal attack. Where is the party named? There is an implication that he thinks that pro-CCP editors may have a conflict of interest. I also note that you have made racist attacks on Japanese people in your contribs list, as well as swearing frequently and calling other people brainwashed and idiots.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. What makes you think that I'm pro-CCP, and that I "glorified the government and speared the opposition"? It is used entirely to discredit my views. I have been warned for my previously, and some of them are deleted. To make his point, the user blanked sections on both the article and talk page, and was reverted by the admin Kungfuadam [10], before being restored by YINever. In one of his posts here he clearly referred me, telling me to email him. --PatCheng 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:The Epoch Times

"Beware of Web Spies

The Chinese Communist Government have sent tens of thousands of spies overseas, many of them are known as 'Web Spies', their job is to stay online and pretend to be reviewers and post articles that glorifies the government and smears any government oppositions. If you look at the history of reviews on this newspaper, there seem to be a few guys who are active too regularly. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freereader (talk • contribs).

Yes, anyone who disagrees with anything that the Falun Gong says cannot possibly be anybody else but a government-hired web spy. Brilliant.

This seems very close to a personal attack. Names aren't used, but there's a clear implication. Removing personal attacks is not vandalism.CovenantD 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)"

Blnguyen, To be fair, User:Freereader's comment does seem like a personal attack. He clearly makes an implication that some editors on WP are "Web Spies". Removing personal attacks is not a violation and does not break the 3RR. Even CovenantD says that theres a clear implication of a personal attack in Freereader's comment. Also User:Freereader's comments are inappropriate on the talk page since Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Blnguyen, the fact that you keep referring to editors as "pro-CCP editors" shows your bias in this matter and is contrary to the official policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --RevolverOcelotX 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment pro-CCP is clearly in the context of the editwar, relative to the other lot. I never said you were pro-CCP; it clearly refers to the those whom the person writing the comment feels as pro-CCP. The accusation against PatCheng has been removed, so we are reduced to a general comment, where he feels that users on the (relatively) pro-CCP as opposed to those on pro-FLG side may have conflicts of interest. When did I say that you "glorified the government and speared the opposition"? Also, Kungfuadam reverted the blanking, I don't see anything about the comment by Freereader.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, it is clear that Freereader is referring to PatCheng. Kungfuadam reverted the blanking because Freereader (talk · contribs) and Web spy killer (talk · contribs) are clearly vandalism accounts. Just look at their contributions. See one of Freereader/Web spy killer's post [11] where Freereader/Webspykiller clearly asked PatCheng to email him. The CheckUser here proved that Freereader and Web spy killer are the same user. Blnguyen, it seems you may have a conflict of interest here because you keep accusing and insisting that some editors are "pro-CCP". --RevolverOcelotX 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, I am referring to the relative spectra of the two sides. I haven't accused either side of pushing POV yet. The part in question has been removed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the comment left by Freereader was clearly inappropriate for the talk page. Although names weren't used, theres a clear implication of a personal attack directed at PatCheng. Removing personal attack and vandalism from a vandalism account (Freereader) does not break the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do question Blnguyen's judgment, considering he's only been an admin since 29/5. A more experienced admin should deal with this one. --PatCheng 13:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked you per RevolverOcelotX's comments. Additionally, it is unfair to block a user indefintely when matters are being investigated. If this investigation reaches another forum such as the Administrators' Noticeboard, you have no means of defending yourself. Finally, removal of personal attacks does not constitute 3RR.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

Please stop your pro-Chinese propaganda campaign. This is not what wikipedia stands for, we stand for an NPOV. Free Taiwan.El benderson 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email me

Go to User:Sasquatch and click the "E-mail this user" button. As it stands, the current block is somewhat appropriate but I'm willing to talk. Sasquatch t|c 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of your unblock request

02:32, 19 June 2006, you placed this request, which I shall review:

{{unblock|Has settled matter with affected users, will not use personal attacks again.}}

One of the affected users, Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), whom you have subjected to numerous personal attacks because he blocked you as a last resort to deal with your disruptive behavior, has expressed concern at your request to be unblocked. Clearly you have not settled anything with him. Moreover while blocked you have admittedly and openly continued to engage in sock puppetry to evade your block, and even tried to produce a hostile RfC against the blocking admin. This is unacceptable. Request denied. --Tony Sidaway 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the opinion. Absolutely not. Your personal attacks and subsequent actions were egregious -- Samir धर्म 06:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get this throught your head: I HAVE APOLOGISED FOR MY PERSONAL ATTACKS AND REMOVED THEM, AND BEEN BLOCKED 24 HOURS ALREADY. How is filing a RFC unacceptable and "hostile", when Mr Wales himself told me to settle it via mediation? The sockpuppet rules only applies to sockpuppets used to vandalise articles, and I never used sockpuppets since filing the RFC. Blocking me indefinitely without a chance to defend myself is certainly not "last resort". Could you point out where I have subjected Blnguyen to "personal attacks"? On the contray, he called me a POV-pusher and has admitted to not reviewing my entire contribution, merely forming judgements of it based on my current content dispute with TJive. In fact he has blocked me twice for the same violation, and has engaged in a wheel war with Kungfuadam.--PatCheng 07:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't let that last comment go. I corresponded via email with Adam about the wording of that block, and did not wheel war with him.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam told me that he "doesn't want" to engage in a wheel war with you. It's you that cause TJive to portray me as a "web spy", and I'v been receiving harassing emails gloating over my "ban".--PatCheng 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another appeal

No thanks. That's it. I'm protecting this talk page. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

This is the apology i received from PatCheng yesterday. I'm posting it here so that people can see why I unblocked.

Today I had long, hard think about my actions on wikipedia, and no longer angry about my ban. I now realised that my actions on wikipedia unnecessarly hurt other users and the editing and quality of articles. Because of my thoughtless comments I have offended many people, and due to my content disputes and reverts with TJive I have deprived him of his right to edit wikipedia article in good faith.

I now see that my actions only damaged my standing in the wikipedia community. I know that I have left many people in bad faith, particularly Blnguyen and TJive, but please give me one and final chance to correct myself. I will promise no longer engage in content disputes or personal attacks, but discuss them with users involved. I will now respect wikipedia guidelines and the actions of administrators.

Please place me in prohibation. I am willing for my editing activities to keep tracked by any administrator user. If caught violating my terms again I will gladly accept my ban and leave for good. I need a chance to prove my intentions as a helpful editor, not as a vandal or edit warrior. I really want to be a part of wikipedia again.

I have previously shown that I'm capable of working together with others in various wikiprojects. I also have a barnstar for my efforts. I will perform any action required for the return of my editing previlages. Please don't take wikipedia away from my life. I don't know what to do without it.

I am going to unblock based on this. Pat - do not let me down! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this same message to both User talk:PatCheng and User talk:Theresa knott.

"PatCheng" was blocked for a number of reasons, but as far as I am concerned, he can apologize and be forgiven for his contemptible racist attacks and other insults. My interest in this matter is the fact that he has been shadowing me ever since late summer (August) of last year, reverting my edits. He has given no indication, and still does not, that he will discontinue following me. Wikipedia harassment policy says that it is not legitimate to simply follow someone's contributions with the intent to disrupt them or cause them stress. That was clearly his intention, based on his perception of some sleight that I committed against him off of this site. His identity there, "Fenriswolf", claimed a few days ago that he was leaving (Australia) to China, and wouldn't likely be posting anymore. When I found a topic of his at that site mentioning racism on a board, I posted some messages mentioning how hypocritical he was to complain about racism in light of his racist insults here. In response, "Fenriswolf" denied connection to "PatCheng" (the opposite of what he claimed just days before), at the same time that "PatCheng" denied being "Fenriswolf". Incredibly, "PatCheng" has claimed, on the mailing list, that he was cooperating with "Fenriswolf" and that he "agrees" with him that I am a "threat" to Wikipedia.

As well, this person has reappeared on numerous occasions, while still blocked, to do more of the same. This not only accounts for the illegitimate appeals of PatChan and PatriciaC but to five separate Optus and Telstra IPs that have been doing straight reverts of my material to "PatCheng"'s reversions. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] The connection to some of these is revealed by his comments on the mailing list which I document here. The last of them was unblocked by another administrator who thought an indefinite IP block was inappropriate. Once that was done, he posted a message to a User subpage of mine asking me to take his name off - this being the same IP (along with another) that did a straight revert to Chen Yonglin just yesterday. This, quite evidently, is not good faith behavior.

Now that he has been unblocked, if that is to remain so, I should not be expected to be treated as a co-equal with coincidentally massive content disputes. I have not been incivil. I have not been posting attacks on other users. I have not been making racist remarks. I have not been single-handedly disrupting dozens of articles at once. I have not been basing a good deal of my contributions on simply stalking another editor. I am not being sanctioned for any misbehavior. I do not have anything to answer for to PatCheng. Rather, it would be most appropriate should PatCheng be considered to have been sent a restraining order and leave me alone. I do not care one whit about his contributions to non-political and historical articles; even in those he has demonstrated extreme incivility, but when he steps into other arenas, China-related topics in particular, he is set into a rage and barely controls himself. I want nothing to do with him. I am not interested in waging a campaign against his own contributions. But I also want him to understand that he is to stop following me. --TJive 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to press the "Remembe me" button. The cache wasn't cleared, and it showed me.--PatCheng 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a frank admission that you had been circumventing the block in violation of Wikipedia policy. --TJive 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been unblocked already. It was not intentional, but an accident.--PatCheng 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19:40, June 27, 2006 - Revert on Chen Yonglin.
10:10, June 28, 2006 - Unblocking.

Clear circumvention of a block. --TJive 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you're talking about the one on your talk page. It was one of the reasons that got be blocked indefinitely. I promise not to use IP address again from now onwards.--PatCheng 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao: The Unknown Story & reverted comments

Would you like to tell me what the signifiance of removing such old comments from the talk page are? I didn't notice them up until now, but want to establish why you made them and how you feel now.

First off I will say that as you are not living in China, statements about "your country" may appear a little dubious. So unless you are a PRC citizen living overseas, it might be a good idea not to say things like that again.

I know a lot about China because I have a degree in History from a top British university, and spent a lot of time reading journal articles available in the library. Whereas I often have arguments with people of Chinese ethnicity that quit it at school and don't even know basic principles of Historiography (though this comment isn't about you). One's nationality doesn't dictate whether one can comment on something - I hope you realise that now.

I appreciate the fact that you removed those comments. However if the article is to be unlocked, it would help if you reiterated any relevant comments you have over the book or Dr Chang in a constructive manner. It would not be prudent to ask for an unlock if you still feel too emotional on these matters. Cheers, John Smith's 17:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Star Wars newsletter

Project updates
Greetings, Star Wars editors! Deckiller here. It's the first edition of the WikiProject Star Wars newsletter, and yes, it's a semi-ripoff of the Esperenza newsletter. I think it's important to begin with some good news: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Jabba the Hutt have reached featured article status! Kudos to the editors who helped obtain these achievements! WikiProject Star Wars is also on a mission to improve Star Wars articles using the following ideas: An out of universe perspective versus an in universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the future ammendments to our manual of style) Evolving lists into regular articles Moving excess information and specifics to Wookieepedia (and providing links to Wookieepedia per the "see also" and/or "external links" sections) Enhanced communication amongst WikiProject members More to come These should provide the basic steps needed to improve and "encyclopedia-fy" the Star Wars series of articles.
Things to do
There are plenty of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. An update to the page is coming very soon, and it will represent the new and exciting changes that Star Wars pages will be receiving!
Out-of-universe versus in-universe perspectives
Although details are forthcoming, I would like to take this time to explain the gist of this concept. Wikipedia has generally agreed that fictional articles should write about the topic from a "real world" perspective, focusing on real world issues and topics, with a section or two for plot synopsis and so on. Jabba the Hutt is a solid character example, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) is quickly moving toward an out of universe perspective.

Article evolution

As many of you know, lists of minor Star Wars-related themes are very common on Wikipedia; however, since these may be seen as violations of Wikipedia policy (and having seperate articles would breach even more policies), the tentative solution is to create general articles on a list's topic (for example, turning List of Star Wars devices into Technology of Star Wars, which allows us to cover everything from hyperspace to comlinks in a general encyclopedic fashion). This can be very tough for some broad topics, so the key is organization. I encourage all editors to list their ideas on the WikiProject talk page. It will be a very difficult — but tangible — effort.

For an example, let me point you to the Final Fantasy WikiProject. Some of us over at that WikiProject decided to turn various components of Final Fantasy X, such as Pyreflies, Yevon, and the backstory — into an article describing the world of Spira. Location descriptions were given a List of locations in Spira article, and the details themselves were placed on the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page. This is a decent template to follow — however, we will need to place priority on out-of-universe, "real life" topics and perspectives in realtion to the article.

Sounds confusing, eh? It won't, for examples will be popping up left and right in the near future!

Signed...

— Deckill e r 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced quote on the Angband page

Hi. You added:

Geoff Hill relates, "One particularly annoying student was Richard Broadley, a character who was known to cheat at all online games and was universally despised. Early versions of the game were hardcoded to prevent him from finding artifacts when playing from his user account "rebroad" at the University of Warwick. He is immortalised in the game as Draebor the Imp, an annoying character who can be immensely frustrating but (in early versions at least) guaranteed an artifact drop on death."

To the Angband article. Where did you get this quote from? Apart from interest in having a source, I'd be interested to see what else Geoff Hill has to say about the early days of the game. --takkaria 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Cadderly Bonaduce

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cadderly Bonaduce, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadderly Bonaduce. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long user talk page

This user talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot III. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aedra

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aedra, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Aedra. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aedra

Aedra, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Aedra satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aedra and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Aedra during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Blades (Elder Scrolls)

Blades (Elder Scrolls), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Blades (Elder Scrolls) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blades (Elder Scrolls) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Blades (Elder Scrolls) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nirn

Nirn, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Nirn satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirn and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Nirn during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nirn

Nirn, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Nirn satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirn (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Nirn during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:The Elder Scrolls creatures

I have nominated Category:The Elder Scrolls creatures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:The Elder Scrolls creatures

I have nominated Category:The Elder Scrolls creatures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:The Elder Scrolls organizations

I have nominated Category:The Elder Scrolls organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Horadrim

An article that you have been involved in editing, Horadrim, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horadrim. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a university student working on a research on Wikipedia.

Dear Tjive: excuse my abruptness. I am a university student working on a research on Wikipedia; namely, how controversies about articles get settled. I have seen some works of yours about the No Gun Ri massacre, and I thought that your voice would add a lot to my project.

In fact, more than just 'a lot'. Understanding 'how' something is done requires far more than just observing what is visible on the surface. I need to dig deeper; I need insight, understanding, real exprerience. These I can only reach through lively voices of users like you.

So...Do you have time for an online interview? When and how is up to you, and I will make full efforts for your convenience. If you would be willing to give me help, please contact me on my User Talk page within May 9th. Thank you.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last But Not Beast (Dexter's Lab) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last But Not Beast (Dexter's Lab). Since you had some involvement with the Last But Not Beast (Dexter's Lab) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Technology of Command & Conquer listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other Technology of Command & Conquer. Since you had some involvement with the Other Technology of Command & Conquer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2015 (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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry Series (Video Game) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Devil May Cry Series (Video Game). Since you had some involvement with the Devil May Cry Series (Video Game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what a clown

People like you are why Wikipedia is (correctly) considered propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.14.162 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have helped :) --PatCheng (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marilith

The article Marilith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions for Covid-19

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 11:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ENGVAR change in your major edit at Epoch Times

[17] changed the spelling of organisation in a citation so it reads "title=Anti-communist organization descends on Wagga to spread publication|url=https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/anti-communist-organisation-descends-on-wagga-to-spread-publication". Doug Weller talk 09:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, bad autocorrect :/ --PatCheng (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patcheng, About Epoch Times, I wrote questions for you on June 21 and ping to notice you, about your edits. Would you please reply?

Question : Why Deleted Chinese Communist Party-related? and other puzzling edits/ deletion Wetrace (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Newslinger

Hello, PatCheng. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng.
Message added 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Newslinger talk 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Falun Gong and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This ARCA request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]