User talk:SummerThunder

Hi SummerThunder, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the Village Pump

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment under guise of administrative action

Never mind Zoe's attempt to insult you for bringing your concerns to the Village Pump. The handle's behavior as an administrator in this project has never been cordial. Zoe is one of Wikipedia's many hate-administrators. He or she routinely personnally attacks users invited to edit this encyclopedia, all the while hiding behind the civil cover of ordering people not to make personal attacks. It's as if Zoe thinks Wikipedia was created to generate a pool of people he or she can abuse under color of authority. Most of us ignore his or her sad behavior. We seldom maintain durable accounts because they just provide fodder for haters like Zoe to attack. The blocks Zoe threatens you with are neither practically or legally enforcable. Some sources have presented evidence that Wikipedia is edited by only a small fraction of registered accounts, but that data is fatally skewed by the fluid nature most users have adopted to avoid being targeted by a few hundred hateful people camped out here among the 1,000 or so administrators. Just realize that whenever you edit Wikipedia, you are in an extremely hostile environment. Far from the picture of stability created by those who use these pages like MySpace.com to create a sense of community, most of us who influence significant controversial articles seldom keep our heads above the ramparts for any longer than necessary to accomplish our mission. Ms. Manners 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, at first, when i read the topic, i thought that it was another warning from another moderators. haha. thanks for the support. I am glad that they are people like you who don't like those dicator-like moderators. thanks. SummerThunder 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the person above's single-purpose login to attack me, I will issue you one final warning. One more attack on any other person, zh, meta, here, or anywhere else, and you will be blocked. Do you understand? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As an independent administrator I have struck through the provocative comment from a banned account and support the warning from Zoe. You may wish to learn more about how to abide by English language Wikipedia policies by joining the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program. Although a mentor couldn't address your problems on other Wikimedia projects, a mentor could help you adjust to the way we do things here. Then perhaps down the road when you've become an established user here you could appeal the blocks at Meta and zh.Wikipedia. If you earn the support of other established editors here then those other projects may view your request favorably. If you choose to take this advice then drop me a note in February or March. I'll look over your contributions and maybe put in a good word for you. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

what is "personal attack," what is constructive critism? SummerThunder 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, accusing people of being Chinese government spies is pretty personal. We have a policy called assume good faith which basically means bad motivations are the last thing we look for rather than good ones. I've made an effort to be constructive by directing you to the program best suited to help you on the English language Wikipedia. I don't have time to answer all of your questions and guide you personally, but they have volunteers over there who are experienced at that sort of thing. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages 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 name 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! HagermanBot 01:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous):

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

re: stop reverting

huh? It's other people who're reverting you. I'm not reverting any more, to avoid breaking the Three-Revert Rule. I strongly suggest that you do likewise. -- ran (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

don't you wish that this is the chinese site again. you can randomly block people, delete contents, etc. people will find out the truth! you should have followed the three revert rule on the chinese site long time ago. --SummerThunder 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The English and Chinese Wikipedia operate by the same rules. As such, I suggest that you stop the confrontational behavior which has already gotten you blocked on one Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, yea, you are thretening me now? you wish. the English site is MUCH MUCH better than the Chinese. ""But on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." in case you didn't read that part. you are just a liar. admit it. --SummerThunder 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

okayy...... in case you haven't realized, I'm not threatening you; just like what I tried to do on the Chinese Wikipedia (which you ignored), I'm attempting civil discussion. Also, you reverted what I wrote on the Chinese Wikipedia article about the IHT, yet you accuse me of not having read it? -- ran (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

civil discussion does not involve delete people's comments, votes, contributions. you reverted the truth that i wrote about chinese wiki. trying to cover up the truth won't help. --SummerThunder 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China because what you wrote was not within the scope of the article. As for the Chinese Wikipedia article, it's you reverting my edits; I was adding to yours. Also, I haven't done any reverting on the village pump. -- ran (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why my latest version of the Chinese Wikipedia article is not as NPOV as the version you just reverted to? -- ran (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

why did you bann me on chinese site, and kept my articles? and deleted the reference links which I wrote the article for Tibet history?--SummerThunder 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the fourth time, you were banned for spamming, for personal attacks, and for refusing to participate in any kind of civil discussion. All of your edits were reverted on sight because you were treated as a vandal. I restored your Tibet edits because I was looking through your edits to see if there was anything to salvage, and liked what you did for Tibet-related articles.

As for the Chinese Wikipedia article, lie or not, that is a direct quotation which is sourced. -- ran (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

AND as for the list of moderators, I moved it up to where the rest of the info about sysops are, I did not delete it. It is you who keep on inserting self-contradicting and outdated info about sysops back into the article. -- ran (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouting, the truth, and reversions

On this pair of edits by you: extensive use of FULL CAPITALS is commonly interpreted as the written equivalent of shouting. It's intensified by the liberal application of exclamation points. The more capitals and exclamation points you use, the less persuasive you become.

You're keen to present the truth. However, you need to present verifiable facts. What's written in a blog does not constitute verification.

Please read this carefully, and believe what it says. -- Hoary 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

then you should tell the user STOP reverted my contribution several times. ask him to stop doing what he is doing first. --SummerThunder 05:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule violation.

I was going to simply warn you, but I see Hoary kindly did so already. You have violated WP:3RR several times today, the standard punishment for which is a 24 hour block. --tjstrf talk 08:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to simply warn you, but I see someone has already kindly did so already. You have violated WP:3RR several times today, the standard punishment for which is a 24 hour block. stop reverting my edits unless you have prove that they were not correct. --SummerThunder 08:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a falsehood, as I have not violated 3RR as I have not exceeded 3 reverts on any page in the last 24 hours. --tjstrf talk 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a falsehood, as I have not violated 3RR as I have not exceeded 3 reverts on any page in the last 24 hours, because I added new information. --SummerThunder 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Further conversation here is obviously pointless, but what you added is utterly irrelevant. --tjstrf talk 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Further conversation here is obviously pointless, but what you reverted is utterly irrelevant. --SummerThunder 09:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

hm, other people are perfecly capable of having an actual discussion on the zh-wiki issue. Are you actually here for that topic, or just to cause disruption? If you are trying to discuss the topic, how about you just do that calmly and civilly like everyone else. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

and who are you? what made you think that "other people" are capable? how many "other people" can you represent?--SummerThunder 10:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

glancing at VP, a dozen or so? dab (𒁳) 10:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

other than "ran" who else?--SummerThunder 10:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

SummerThunder, if you continue your personal attacks against me, tjstrf, and other Wikipedians, such as accusing people of being liars or spies, etc., you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Gunslinger47 has also asked you to refrain from personal attacks on User talk:Tjstrf.

Please take some time to review the No personal attacks policy. -- ran (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

if you continue your personal attacks against me, uponsnow, and other Wikipedians who disagree what you are doing, such as accusing people of being racists or liars, etc., you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

many other Chinese wikipedian users have also asked you to refrain from personal attacks on them, and revert their comments and votes on the Chinese page.

Please take some time to review the No personal attacks policy. --SummerThunder 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide precise diffs of (i) a personal attack by Ran on you, (ii) a personal attack by Ran on uponsnow, (iii) an accusation by Ran that somebody is a racist, (iv) an accusation by Ran that somebody is a liar, and (v) requests by many other Chinese users of Wikipedia that Ran should refrain from personal attacks on them. Please provide the diffs on this page; we'll all be most interested to see them. Thank you. -- Hoary 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC) "provide precise diffs" highlighted 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. he accused me vandalizing the chinese site when he himself reverted several of my contributions on the chinese site.
2. he called uponsnow a racist.
3. why Ran is a liar?

Example 1:

I tried to add information about Falun Gong on 11-22-2006. deleted by another chinese moderator immediatly. I mentioned that on the villiage pump misc area. Only then, On 22:50 2006-12-29, Ran added the word "Falun Gong" in the PR China's article. then he wrote this.

Also, the Chinese Wikipedia article on the People's Republic of China has an entire paragraph on human rights, in which Falun Gong is mentioned as well: [39]. Thus your claim is incorrect. -- ran (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Example 2:

06:27, 30 December 2006 user Ran deleted a part of my comment, then he wrote this.

I reverted your edit here because you removed my comment and replaced it with yours. -- ran (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

but anyone can go to the village pump misc, click on "history" tab, then compare the one I made on 6:23 and yours on 6:27, the only thing was missing are the part that I just wrote, none of his comment was "replaced".

1. he and other chinese moderators were constantly deleting my contributions, comments and votes. then tell the whole chinese site that I am "vandalizing."

for example: on 21:57 12 December 2006, Chinese Wikipedia user Hillgentleman reverted all my comments, it was immediatly reverted back by the moderator Jasonzhoucn who constantly deleted my articles, comments and votes.

On 13:35 22 December 2006, another Chinese Wikipedia user - 民國九十五年 wrote a comment supporting my position, it was also immediatly deleted without a trace by moderator Jasonzhoucn.

1. There was a vote on striping the moderator Louer's rights on Chinese site, because he was one of the moderators that are very very pro the chinese government, and he constantly abuse his rights. I tried to vote several times. my votes got deleted. my comments were also deleted. because what they did, it appeared as if lots of people are actually supporting louer's abusive behaviors. hence, he is still a moderator even today. and he was also the one who deleted my addition of the "falun gong" on the PR China article on the Chinese site.

--SummerThunder 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but please provide precise diffs. (This is an example: it's the precise diff of the edit in which I asked you to provide precise diffs.) -- Hoary 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

example one [1]

example two. Here I added on the Chinese site what Zhao Ziyang said during his visit to the Tiananmen square which was deleted. at the bottom, I added ==软禁到死==, "house arrest until death" it was also deleted. [2]

No, I do not want "example one" of something that you don't clearly define. You made a number of clear allegations against Ran. I'll give you a choice: Either (a) copy your list of allegations against Ran again, this time providing a precise diff for each allegation, or (b) withdraw your list of allegations against Ran.

Provision of diffs for your list of allegations may take you one hour or more. Go ahead, take an hour or more. -- Hoary 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

who are you? why don't you go spend an hour and do that yourself?

I'm somebody reading serious allegations that you made in this pair of edits and that you are not prepared to back up clearly with diffs. If you make allegations, providing evidence for them is your responsibility. I'm somebody thinking that you appear to be acting in an offensive fashion and whose edits should be blocked for the benefit of Wikipedia. I'm somebody who's willing to be persuaded by diffs that I'm wrong and that your allegations are correct. So persuade me. I repeat: Please provide precise diffs of (i) a personal attack by Ran on you, (ii) a personal attack by Ran on uponsnow, (iii) an accusation by Ran that somebody is a racist, (iv) an accusation by Ran that somebody is a liar, and (v) requests by many other Chinese users of Wikipedia that Ran should refrain from personal attacks on them. Below, I've provided a handy "form" to help you. -- Hoary 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Diff(s) for (i):
• Diff(s) for (ii):
• Diff(s) for (iii):
• Diff(s) for (iv):
• Many diffs for (v):

so you are not a administrator. and you think that i have the time to find everything they have deleted, and every comments they deleted? you can ask them to show you the evidence that they made against me. --SummerThunder 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your inference that I'm not an administrator, but whether or not I'm an administrator is not the point, which is whether you can substantiate the allegations that you make so freely. I did not ask for evidence that anyone needed to substantiate allegations about you, I asked you for evidence for the claims that you made about another user.

You have an odd habit of repeating what's said to you: When somebody complains that you have done X, you complain that they have done X. This is very reminiscent of my own behavior and that of my friends when we were ill-tempered and about nine years old. I thought that I ought to "assume good faith", as it's oddly called in these parts, and presume adulthood. Perhaps I was just wasting my time. -- Hoary 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

i have showed u examples 1 and 2. they are not good enough for u? And there are about how many, 1000 administors on here, none of them can help you to find the proof that you are requesting? after all, are you getting paid to do this job? I sure am not. --SummerThunder 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning against personal attacks.

This is your second warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on User:Tjstrf, you will be blocked for disruption.
(first warning second offense) –Gunslinger47 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

it is? who are you?

1. show me the examples.
2. look at the personal attacks that he made on me. --SummerThunder 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've supplied two examples above, it looked like this: (first warning second offense)

That's compressed notation, but it leads to two places where you make ad hominem attacks against User:Tjstrf's age. I've seen Tj's treatment of you, and there are definitely some places where he should have been more civil. However, if you see someone breaking Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that does not entitle you to break them in retaliation. –Gunslinger47 04:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe you should read what he wrote first, and see what he did to my contributions. then make a judgement. --SummerThunder 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed your history somewhat. I've even given a warning to someone who has wronged you. Yes, many of the people you've dealt with might have broken the policies and guidelines as well, but this does not make it okay for you to do so too. Imagine if a police officer sees you running a stop sign and pulls you over for it. Telling the officier that a guy in a red truck ran a stop sign and cut you off earlier doesn't change the fact that you ran the stop sign yourself, breaking the law in the process. –Gunslinger47 05:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

who are the "many of the people?" other than those two ran and tjstrf who have started the editing wars who constantly reverted the articles which I have edited. which I am not surprised. since it was also the same editor who deleted my contributions on the Chinese site, called it vandalism, then reverted my contributions and banned me. --SummerThunder 08:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No comment. –Gunslinger47 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I warned you about repeated personal attacks, and yet you continued. You have been blocked for 24 hours. If you continue the personal attacks after the block is expired, the next block will be longer. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

i want you to show me the examples of "personal attacks." --SummerThunder 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If I tried to give examples of the personal attacks, it would be nothing but your entire list of contributions. Just look at your contribution page. Look, enough is enough. If you continue, if you don't understand what you have done, the blocks will get extended. Stop, now, or go elsewhere. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

go elsewhere? that is a personal attack, you need to apologize. i demand ran and tjstrf to apologize to me personally for reverting things that i wrote which are based on solid facts. --SummerThunder 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

SummerThunder, it appears likely that the following are sockpuppets that you're using to evade the block placed upon you.

• [3]
• [4]

Please stop, as using sockpuppets to evade a block may cause your existing block to be restarted or extended. -- ran (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SummerThunder, I don't want to have to extend your block. However, you must respect it and sit it out like most people. Thank you, Khoikhoi 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

please stop reverting those two articles, if you feel they are incorrect, feel free to add your part of contribution, by reverting them, you are not doing any good to the entire wikipedia community. accusing people doing things that they did not do is wrong. hiding the truth from general public is also wrong. it defeats the purpose of this entire web site.--SummerThunder 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "spread (your version of) the truth". It is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.156.44.201 :( –Gunslinger47 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.156.41.124. -- ran (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.2.220.181 –Gunslinger47 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.16.8.40 -- ran (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder, you are blocked and may not edit any page (outside of this one, and a few others) until that block expires. You may not use any other means to edit. As such, I've reverted all the contributions you've made since the time of your block, without prejudice. –Gunslinger47

China article edits

SummerThunder, please slow down and take your time with your edits. Your additions to several China articles have contained spelling errors and unsourced statements. It is not the job of other editors to fix your work or "prove you wrong". You should try to get your work right the first time and cite your facts. I know you are trying to get the truth out, but if you don't take the time to do this professionally, you won't have an end product that people will take seriously.--Daveswagon 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Two days ago I supported a block warning and recommended a program that could help you adjust to site policies and procedures. I'm very disappointed by what I've found upon returning here, especially because you seem to have some topical knowledge that could help the project, but the manner in which you have chosen to participate is unacceptable. Instead it has escalated to the point where WP:DE becomes recommended reading. I hope you give it a good look during your block.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a battleground of ideas. Editorial collaboration does not consist of the text equivalent of guerilla warfare. Our task is to document verifiable information through citations to reliable sources, rather than to engage in confrontational attempts at shaping consensus reality. There is plenty of room for that approach elsewhere on the Internet and if you wish to initiate a Wikipedia fork based on the approach you prefer, you may use this site's GNU licensed content and embark upon that experiment. This site, however, does not work that way. I hope you become more receptive to feedback because I'd rather see you develop into a valued contributor than get blocked from editing. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Due to continued block evasion, the block on this account has been extended for the fourth time, this time to indefinite. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)