User talk:ZeehanLin

Please be nice and patient with this New Wikipedian.

This user thinks he is a newbie. If he has done something wrong, please give him careful advice and don't use harsh words to accuse him.

This user is a newbie and has a fear of being hurt by the big guys.

Policies
and
Guidelines
-1This editor is new to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He may make mistakes from time to time and needs help from others.

Welcome!

Hi ZeehanLin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Certes (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblocked, conditions

Per this, you have been unblocked with the following condition: You are indefinitely topic banned from Taiwan. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

According to this, the topic block would be limited to the country (or what kind of entity ZeehanLin would consider it to be) of Taiwan itself. Editing a film made in Taiwan, or a train station in Taiwan, or a Taiwanese person isn't a ban violation in 0xDeadbeef's view, who blocked ZeehanLin. The technicalities on whether Mainland China is in the Taiwan topic haven't been clarified. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ka le (gaming slang)

The article Ka le (gaming slang) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, also per WP:NOTDICT

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. Lordseriouspig 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop

Please read WP:TBAN: (emphasis added) a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.

You're not allowed to talk about anything relating to Taiwan, anywhere on this site. The recent reference desk thread you opened is a clear violation. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You just edited Cross-strait relations, and even though you appropriately fixed a typo, this clearly violates the topic ban. Please avoid the topic. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to violate topic ban after warning.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

(C)hanges that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand.

— WP:BRV

This policy shows helpful changes shoule be allowed, even if they were made by banned editors.

Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.

— WP:BANEX

It may be not a vandalisim but I don't think this spelling error would be kept as no reasonable person could disagree this obvious error.
By the way, I don't think my behaviours including ones I did before the topic ban are harmful enough to get an indefinitely block and topic ban.

Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often result in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.

— WP:BMB

(I)ncidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days. ... (A)ccounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;

— WP:BLOCKDURATION

Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.

— WP:INDEF

I didn't even get a "primary resort" before and how did it suddenly become a "last resort"? Does that mean my account is used exclusively for disruption?
Your accusations contain a lot of conjecture, which you have no intention of verifying.
# "you have been repeating this behavior for half a year", there was a long period of time when I didn't edit because I didn't find any new points.
#Taiwan and its associated talk pages actually only talk pages, only one was the ambiguation page.
#Your editing is exclusively about Taiwan, so a sitewide block is valid as you've not edited about any other topics.See more other editings in global account.

ZeehanLin (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edits by a banned/blocked user can be allowed to stand, they are not required to be allowed to stand. That's not relevant to this matter anyway. You write this as if you are addressing the blocking administrator, and then say you don't want them to review this(which they shouldn't anyway, though you can negotiate with them directly outside of an unblock request, which is for asking for third party review). You are mostly arguing process and not the merits of the block. This block is for violating a topic ban. You were topic banned from editing about Taiwan, you then proceeded to edit Cross-strait relations which included Chiang Kai-shek. That is a clear topic ban violation. Your request should address why we should trust you will not violate this topic ban again, or why it is invalid more generally, or specifically here. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

In one word: I don't think my behaviours are harmful enough to get a serie of indefinitely block and topic ban. See more previous information: [1][2] I understand what i am blocked for, i will not do it again, and i will make productive contributions instead. But I think the serie of blocks and bans are too serve.

Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often result in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.

— WP:BMB

(I)ncidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days. ... (A)ccounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;

— WP:BLOCKDURATION

Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.

— WP:INDEF

I didn't even get a "primary resort" before and how did it suddenly become a "last resort"? Does that mean my account is used exclusively for disruption? ZeehanLin (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

• First, two preliminary remarks. I have come to this page to review your unblock request without any previous experience of you, or even knowledge of your existence; therefore what I am about to say is the impression of an uninvolved outsider, with no preconceptions. Secondly, I have discovered over the course of years that I am much more inclined to take a favourable view of unblock requests than most administrators, so if anyone would unblock you then probably I would.
• Now, considering your unblock request. I have read all of your posts on this page, and also fairly extensively reviewed the editing history which led to the block. Here is a summary of a few of the main points which I observed.
• Your whole approach to editing is combative and belligerent. You regard your own view as THE TRUTH® and dismiss the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you.
• When consensus is against you, you are either unwilling or unable (it doesn't matter which) to accept that, whatever your personal opinion, in a collaborative project it is necessary to accept consensus even if you are convinced it is wrong.
• Rather than addressing the essence of problems which have been pointed out to you, including those which eventually led to your block, you prefer to wikilawyer your way round them by quoting bits of policies, guidelines, etc out of context, and try to apply them in a pedantic fashion.
• Rather than address the problems with your own editing you prefer to make attacks on other people, such as your quite absurd accusations against 0xDeadbeef.
• When the possibility of an unblock subject to a topic ban was under discussion, rather than accept it in spirit as well as letter, you tried to argue and negotiate over the exact delimitation of the ban, which could only mean that you were intending to continue to make edits related to the topic from which you were banned, and wished to establish exactly how far you could get away with doing so. Sure enough, once you were unblocked subject to that topic ban, you proceeded to make edits relating to the subject of the ban.
• When you have requested an unblock, far from attempting to show that you understand the reasons for the block and will edit in a different spirit in future, you have posted unblock requests and related comments which themselves repeat many of the same problems, thereby not just suggesting but proving that you are likely to continue in the same way if unblocked.
  • Unblocking is therefore out of the question. Moreover, if you post any more of the same kind of thing then I advise you to expect to have your ability to edit this page removed, to prevent you from wasting further administrator time. JBW (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that by default blocking administrators cannot review block appeals unless they are unblocking. As for the rest, I don't have enough energy to comment on because I'm tired of all the directed accusations of me being threatening, lying, and etc. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You're tired, ain't I? Because of this, I lost my own right of editing. And you say you're tired???? How can you say that out?ZeehanLin (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to be tired? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

An emperor's condescending attitude. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there any need to show what you have said? Accusations, joke. ZeehanLin (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to respond here. Your edit on Cross-strait relations is allowed to stand because it was fixing a typo, as you correctly point out. However, it is clear that you repeatedly breached the topic ban that you previously agreed to. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The section on that is specifically about reverting topic-banned edits. I don't think anyone would revert that edit in violation of the ban, but a couple sections above there is WP:BMB. ZeehanLin, you've clearly violated the topic ban even after I told you not to, which is a disappointing outcome and shows that you are unable to listen and follow even the most basic instructions, which was that you cannot edit anything related to Taiwan. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The typo error is very very very obvious and WP:BANEX allows obvious fixes. "You are unable to listen and follow even the most basic instructions." Did you listen me any time? Did you follow the banning instructions when you blocked me indefinitely for the first time? Now you mention WP:BMB, and it says Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort Did you hear that? I think you are the real one violate WP:IDHT as you always think you are right. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just stop talking, there is no need to talk to you. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You are unable to listen and follow even the most basic instructions.WP:OR and WP:UNCIVIL maybe. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits by a banned/blocked user can be allowed to stand, they are not required to be allowed to stand. That's not relevant to this matter anyway. You write this as if you are addressing the blocking administrator, and then say you don't want them to review this(which they shouldn't anyway, though you can negotiate with them directly outside of an unblock request, which is for asking for third party review). You are mostly arguing process and not the merits of the block. This block is for violating a topic ban. You were topic banned from editing about Taiwan, you then proceeded to edit Cross-strait relations which included Chiang Kai-shek. That is a clear topic ban violation. Your request should address why we should trust you will not violate this topic ban again, or why it is invalid more generally, or specifically here. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@331dot:I don't think my behaviours including ones I did before the topic ban are harmful enough to get an indefinitely block and topic ban. That's what i mean.ZeehanLin (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that goes without saying. You would not have made the edits if you thought they justified a topic ban or a block. But you have violated an unblock condition and seem to claim that you're justified in having done so while insulting the blocking admin. This does not bode well in considering whether or not to unblock you. I know that I am not about to. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I am far more likely to revoke you talk page access for behavior that is just plain blockable since the block.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Plain blockable? Reasons? ZeehanLin (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: What do you mean in User talk:0xDeadbeef/Archive 5#Or just specifically me? You used an emoji "😜" and it seems that you don't take things seriously and display a frivolous attitude. ZeehanLin (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you not understand? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Insulting? How? ZeehanLin (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Mmm. I'm curious about something. Do you feel like you are being oppressed by the admins here? Or just specifically me? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppressed? What do you mean? You mean you admit all you admins' behaviors here factly are oppressions? ZeehanLin (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

And if I answer, does that mean I have a new reason to be blocked? ZeehanLin (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you don't want to solve the problem, you just want to watch the fun. ZeehanLin (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, ignore the question please. Another administrator will review this, I'll stop talking as you said :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought fixing typos may be an exception and that's it. I don't want to violate rules but i think typing error is obvious enough to be allowed to correct. ZeehanLin (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined requests for active sitewide blocks cannot be removed until the block is removed per WP:BLANKING. I've restored my decline. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry my fault ZeehanLin (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• See Talk:Mainland China#About "Chinese mainland" for an additional attempt at gaming the original topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  gaming? ZeehanLin (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Gaming" or "gaming the system" refers to "using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to, instead, manipulate the system for a desired outcome." Although I would describe your behavior more as "testing the boundaries", seeing how close you can approach the forbidden behavior before being punished. Either way, it seems like you just have no desire to actually follow the rules here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef:I checked your log and found that your bans on others are mostly related to WP:sockpuppetry. You may be used to giving indefinite bans and then form a perception that indefinite bans are common. But I want to tell you that my behavior and these sp behaviors should be handled differently. I still recommend you to review it to avoid potential abuse of permissions. ZeehanLin (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you might not have much experience in this aspect. Please proceed with caution. ZeehanLin (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought you told them to stay off your talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok just come back. I didnt get this point until i checked this admin's log. ZeehanLin (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #93281

Forgot to note i had declined this earlier. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)