User talk:Xuo Tran

Hello, Xuo Tran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Introduction 5 The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help Tips	How to write a great article Manual of Style Be Bold Assume Good faith *Get adopted*
If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place `{{Help me}}` on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

This is a warning to User:MapcheckerParis and User:Xuo Tran: You are edit warring. If you persist, you may both be blocked from editing. The articles will get along fine without you. Again, use the talk pages and discuss things together. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna Frodesiak, perhaps I was not clear enough on my last edit on Paris 1. I was not edit warring, since I was only introducing some stuff introduced by the other user to find a consensus. I introduced nothing he would think it is "worse" than before.

As you point out yourself, I discussed but received no answer. And I have been doing that since.

Regarding the Library, I put different stuff and explanations each time, sorry if it was not clear enough.

Thanks

--Xuo Tran (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that on the university page, I always asked you to reverse the different users edit-warring and never edit-warred myself. Now a completely new account is here, and bizarrely the other users edit-warring in the same way are gone. I do not think it would be fair to say I behave in the same way than them or him or her. --Xuo Tran (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the new account? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anna Frodesiak, the new user is MapChecker. But before several accounts were doing the same edits without talking: EpéeDeLaProvidence, Marco Carrasco, IP adresses.

Sorry to say, but you keep saying (Paris 1 talk page) that I was not cooperative, but I always followed your advice, I always used talk page most of the time without answer, I gave you quotes in your talk page and explained about the youtube video put into the article and so on but because you asked for these explanations each time, I don’t write novels in talk pages on how the other users and you are biased, etc. I don't see what I have done wrong. --Xuo Tran (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing I can say that I have not said numerous times. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indent Indent your posts on talk pages with colons. Like this: I like rabbits. :Me too. ::Do you have a rabbit? :::Yes. I have three. I like snakes. :Oh. I don't like snakes. ::Why? :::I am scared of snakes.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was simply a mistake, I am not A conceptual entity or the other accounts referred to. Xuo Tran (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:51, 16 September 2019 (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.

@Yunshui Thanks for your explanations. The problem is I don't even understand what link there is with the other accounts, so that I don't know what to explain. I only found that both me and another account have written on the talk page of Anna Frodesiak, but I don't see how this means that it is the same person writing. Thanks. --Xuo Tran (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand why I am confused with the other accounts so that I don't know what I have to explain. Thanks. --Xuo Tran (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2019 (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.