User talk:Peterpens

Welcome

Hello, Peterpens, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

COI

Kannst Du bitte aufhören, Deinen Mist hier in der Wikipedia zu verbreiten? Du bist hier falsch. Hier wie in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to silence critics against communist PRC China, then you are wrong here. Wikipedia is a free place. --Peterpens (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwachsinn. Du hast Dich hier an Regeln zu halten - und "frei" bedeutet nicht, daß hier jeder seinen persönlichen Standpunkt in Artikel schreiben darf. Kaufe Dir Webspace, schreib an die UN oder an den Papst. Aber hier bitte nicht. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hör einfach auf, sonst wirst Du auch hier gesperrt. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

und ja sicher doch, wir alle sind von China gekauft. Die Invasion Taiwans steht kurz bevor, der Weltuntergang hat bereits stattgefunden und ich finde den Aluhut nicht mehr. @Siwibegewp, Emergency doc, and Jensbest: --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weihohweih. @PCP: du hast vergessen, user:Papst anzupingen. :-) --Siwibegewp (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello admins, please get in contact with me. There seems to be a massive manipulation on Wikipedia ongoing in order to silence critics against the PRC (China).

Conversely, it looks like you are intent on presenting criticism of the PRC and/or of the ICAO's handling of Taiwan's (non-)membership with a particular point of view. Please note that International Civil Aviation Organization#Membership already discusses the Taiwan situation and is reliably sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes please, Peterpens, go to the Arbcom and have your mission discussed here as at german wikipedia. Call Jimbo, call the pope or the president for support. You are wrong here. This is not a place for propaganda. Just read WP:RTL. Spread your ideas on Twitter or Facebook or wherever else. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Thanks Fred, I must have overlooked this part of the article. It still does not justify the behaviour of User Siwibegewp, Pentachlorphenol, Jensbest and Emergengy doc who constantly revert any of my articles which voice critics against the PRC (happens in German Wikipedia.) Peterpens (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

certainly, sysop Emergency Doc is paid off by China, I am as well.

traffic message channel: there is a wrong-way driver on I99

driver: one..??? hundreds!!!!

--Pentachlorphenol (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that each language's Wikipedia operates independently. So, I'm not sure what behaviour Pentachlorphenol usw had shown to you there, nor am I inclined to act based on vague descriptions of it. That said, the English Wikipedia is not the next battleground or playground for you to use in your dispute—@Pentachlorphenol: that goes toward you just as toward Peterpens, if not more based on your comments above. Either make a clear, policy-based objection to Peterpens' edits or leave the user alone. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a man-on-a-mission situation with a user who shows no interest in the rules for collaborative editing and little knowledge about the specific situation of the China-Taiwan-conflict. --Jensbest (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jensbest, why dont you work on articles but instead spread personal attacks on my talk page???

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Dear admins, several persons are following up on me, spreading personal attacks, revert critics against the PRC or threatening me in order to stop further contributions. Just FYI.

October 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at International Civil Aviation Organization. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this block is toward the statement on your user page, I am investigating in manipulations by Peoples Republic of China in Wikipedia, which is a direct violation of #1 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, an official policy of English Wikipedia. If you need any clarifications, please ask here and I will answer them later. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19476 was submitted on Oct 12, 2017 09:25:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the complaint on Admin noticeboard because of suspicious deletion/reverts in several articles. Why does no one check that or comment on it but instead I get blocked indefinitely?

It would be fine for me to remove the particular statement from my talk page but I also request to have my complaints on the board taken care of.

I am contributing to Wikipedia in articles which are highly sensitive and actually describe manipulations by foreign governments. We need Wikipedia to be neutral and allow the existence of this credible information/sources!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious_reverts_and_discredit_of_relevant_sources_in_articles_which_highlight_critics_against_the_PRC_.28China.29

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

--Peterpens (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions in the block message for addressing the reason you are blocked and for requesting an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

It would be fine for me to remove the particular statement from my talk page but I also request to have my complaints on the board taken care of. I am contributing to Wikipedia in articles which are highly sensitive and actually describe manipulations by foreign governments. We need Wikipedia to be neutral and allow the existence of this credible information/sources!

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. You have not addressed your violations of WP:SOAPBOX. In fact, responding below, you've doubled down on this. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2017 (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.

I won't review this unblock request (partly because I responded to your help request), but I'll offer a few words of opinion. You said on your user page "I am investigating in manipulations by Peoples Republic of China in Wikipedia", and that immediately raises alarms - Wikipedia user accounts are for people wishing to develop our encyclopedia, not for those on political quests. Also, your editing appears to be pushing a clear pro-Taiwan and anti-PRC bias, backed by inappropriate sources. For example, you use the Epoch Times here, and that is clearly a partisan anti-PRC publication, described at Epoch Times thus: "The newspaper maintains a generally anti-communist editorial stance, including explicit opposition to the Communist Party of China". It is clearly not a reliable source for PRC/Taiwan issues. Also, you use this article here, and while The Diplomat might be a reliable source for factual reporting, that is clearly an editorial opinion piece, and not really suitable. In short, you are clearly here to push one political viewpoint in opposition to another. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely not in the position to generally discredit Epoch Times by citing a Wiki article or simply saying "It is clearly not a reliable source for PRC/Taiwan issues". Epoch-Times might not be the mouthpiece of the PRC but it is still a news paper with millions of readers and it does not publish fake news. When users read my edits and check the source THEY can decide if they believe in Epoch Times. This is how democracy works!

Epoch Times is BANNED in China because it reports about the things which the communist party wants to hide. By saying that Epoch Times is inappropriate and by deletions of my contributions it basically follows the "wish" of this regime that this specific information is not spread further. Therefore I can simply say that someone who discredits Epoch Times does not have a neutral stance.

Wikipedia should be a free Encyclopedia where critics from different viewpoints must be allowed and not censored. I am NOT trying to spread manipulated facts in my edit from ICAO, but only reports/criticsm. How do you think can critics come from a "suitable source"? And who decides if this critics is appropriate? Removing criticism from Wiki which is published in news papers like The Diplomat is almost the same as censorship.

I am NOT here to spread my personal POV but I am here to help that Wikipedia can store various information from credible sources. I definitely cant accept to get banned just because of one sentence on my talk page. A message with the request to remove it would be enough. Furthermore, my complaints on the Admin board has just been ignored.

In German Wikipedia, a specific user has also tried to generally discredit Epoch Times, of course without any success. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Belege/Flie%C3%9Fband#Umgang_mit_parteiischen_Informationsquellen_-_Epoch_Times--Peterpens (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you are continuing to use your talk page to soapbox, and you clearly do not understand the reasoning for your block, I am withdrawing your talk page access at this time. You can request an unblock at WP:UTRS should you choose to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PlyrStar93. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 50 Cent Party, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 13:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19480 was submitted on Oct 12, 2017 19:38:15. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]