User talk:Zhanzhao/archive 1

Please STOP - Last warning

Look if you don't understand the meaning of Remake, so see it here. You are NOT permitted to write things in a film article in such a bad light just because you want to make it look bad enough. Whether or not authorised, it is not relevant and does not matter, more so in an encyclopedia article. Again see Remake and check what it means. If you continue, you will be BLOCKED from editing. It means - you will not be able to edit on this site anymore. Remember that because you have been warned for the last time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Shshshsh Instead of asking me for proof that a movie was NOT authorized, why don't you show proof that it IS? No one in their right mind would admit that they are remaking a movie without permission. After all, these are both relatively high profile movies in their respective markets. However, it should be very easy to find at least one quote where the director/writer/marketing company of the newer movie said something about buying the rights for a remake.

PS thats me on the latest undo, I forgot to log in when making that undo.

Asking for editor assistance

What constitutes vandalism?

All the examples of the movies listed in the Remake page were authorised remakes. If I do get blocked for what I see is a justifiable edit, I will draw the attention of another objective editor to judge this. The movie is already listed under the Bollywood films and plagiarism page by someone else in the past in any case. Anyway I am requesting for official Editor assistance on this matter to get a NPOV for this matter, so we shall leave it up to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs)

Your attempts to empasise your own POV with misrepresentation, your constant reversions, unexplained edits all can be considered vandalism. I hope you do learn that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, I merely reflect what other pages have said. You were the one that started this by removing the previous mention of plagiarism posted by someone else. I had included sources whereas you have cited nothing at all. In fact, your own post of "I don't compare - it's OR" is more than enough to show your subjectiveness towards this matter, since you're unwilling to even check the sources. In your own words, Your attempts to empasise your own POV with misrepresentation, your constant reversions, unexplained edits all can be considered vandalism. I hope you do learn that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs)

You try to imitatre me and quote my words but what you are doing is the complete opposite because you are doing that incorrectly. Comparing two plot stories and making conclusions is in violation of Wikipedia's policy WP:OR. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not make the conclusion, someone else did. You were the one who went in to edit it away. I merely undid your vandalism. 2) There's another WP policy called verifiability. Did you verify by watching both movies? Many other people who have watched both movies and posted online about their experience, including the reviewer from rediff. Again, all this is easily VERIFIED by comparing the wiki plot synopsis. But you refuse to. If you think either plot synopsis is wrong why don't you delete those as well?

3) There's yet a third policy called NPOV. As I said, I welcome the intervention of another editor to make the decision.

At least the page is better now. It quotes the source movie, instead of blatantly leaving any mention of it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to ridicule

User:Zhanzhao, despite your attempts to fight falsehood, the ColourWolf vandal always strikes in areas which you do not know which is true. I suggest that you team up with User:Arbiteroftruth to take me down. That would make things more challenging for me.218.186.12.213 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Challenging indeed. I just have to log on. You have to create account after account. Have fun.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, blocked for 3 months

I am soooooo surprised. I wonder how many more IP addresses will be marked with my trademark ColourWolf name. I will be famous then, haha!StrongestManAlive (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Too bad there's more than just us 2 doing the corrections. StongestManAlive < Strength in Numbers Zhanzhao (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---Ohhhh... How lonely you must be. Because there's one thing you must know: You cannot protect every single page. My edits that User:Arbiteroftruth is attempting to stop are mere decoys, and both of you fell for it. Try stopping my more subtle edits. 218.186.12.204 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---Huge ego I see. Don't flatter yourself. I merely correct where I see mistakes or a need for ammendment. You are merely one more of the nameless to me. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Payoh ritual murders

Hi 朝廷玉猫 (do correct me if I wrongly assume the source you pick for your username). I have replied on the Talk page of the article, but would like to add a bit here. Articles need not interlink each other, i.e. Article A may link to B, but B need not link to A. Mdm Valli's case can talk about the speculation of her former visits to Adrian Lim, because they are talking about her medical condition, which is pertinent to her case. However, it would not be encyclopaedically suitable for an article on Adrian Lim and the Toa Payoh murders to talk about Mdm Valli, whose connection is only casual and disputed. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalong. I put my reasonings in your talk page already. Essentially I just could not find a better way to put that info in other than as trivia as I felt it is part of the whole Adrian Lim mythos in Singapore so it had to be put in somewhere.... just not sure how to put it in. It does give a more informative feel to the article as all the other victims were all essentially faceless and unnamed.

If medical professionals conclude that Lim's treatments of Valli caused her condition to worsen (and become a cause of her conflict with the exorcists), we could work that in the "Legacy" section ("Lim's acts continue to affect his victims even after death." or such). As of now, however, it is an inconclusive item that should not be chronicled in this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism: explanation, guidance and warning.

Stop reverting he article to your own version when the version is dreadful. The edit made by the anon are more than good. Almost all the sources you cite are not reliable, and some of them are just blogs. I demand that every line be followed by an inline citation which contains a reliable source (preferably from newspapers) and which clearly states that the film was accused of plagiarism (or accuses the film itself).

In order to do that, you will have to start from zero and add film by film to the table, each followed by a reliable source, which is credible and well formatted, as required by WP:CITE and WP:RS. Only then will this article be a good one, not with your constant re-addition of unreliable sources and unsourced information.

I see your goal is to show how bad Bollywood is. Nothing against it, I think that it's even good. But you must fulfill the required. Akhilesh, letfilmi etc., must not appear on the article again. These requirements, just to clear the matter, are not mine, but are a part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which you must respect, follow and adhere to. If these rules are not followed, the list will be deleted entirely as it has already been discussed and concluded that it adds nothing to the understanding of the topic and only prompts users to vandalise and mess the entire page.

Another full version reversal from your part will be considered violation of these policies and therefore a deliberate act of vandalism which most certainly may cause to your immediate block. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you start collaborating and it's very good. However, many of your sources do not comply with Wikipedia's WP:RS which will have to be removed. Try to find better sources for them. Overall well done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that's why I removed all the unreliable citations and left only films which are followed by reliable citations. I think it's good that you collaborate, I did not say your edits were entirely correct. For that you will have to work much harder. Citations and sources must be provided, and they must be reliable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who decides whether a source is reliable or not? The one who should be working harder is you, as you seem overly ready to doing blind deletes without actually considering the content of the sources.Zhanzhao (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've seen your work on the respective page and thought I should discuss it with you . I've added Chak De India with the reliable sources, it is alleged of plagiarism, though its makers deny that. Cited source provides a bunch of similarities not only in the story but also in the screenplay. I don't think it should be deleted, as a regular editor of the page Do you think it should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dark Wizard (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The operative keyword here is "alleged". If there are sources that claim a movie is plagiarised, and are able to provide the details of the plagiarism, the movie should go inside the list. It should then be up to the editor who holds the opposing view to justify why the sources are wrong. For example: if lets say a blog gives a detail transcript of a conversation spoken verbatim, and compares it to another show and notes the similarity to another show, it is merely stating the facts. The only reason the source should be taken down is if the editor outright claims the content is wrong (with proper justification, i.e. having watched both shows or possessing the 2 transcripts; not just because it is a blog).

At the rate this is going, I'm just waiting for a higher level editor to step in and take control. After all, these so-called editors are even removing shows like Zinda, which is already being sued by the makers of Oldboy for plagiarism, and with a detailed article on the Zinda page itself with a point by point analysis on the copied parts. If they can even claim such films are not examples of plagiarism, their other edits are not credible either.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You are not the one who will "allege". Reputable sources are. Everything must be sourced, and the burden of proof is only on you, not on me. You can prove omething only with yusing a reliable source. In this case the source you cited is ureliable. Well in any case this list is going to be removed soon. That's the decision of established editors and admins. The nest time you revert the page, I'll take admin actions against you, and secondly this list will be removed completely from the page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh...

I added now Zinda with a reliable source from The Hindu. The source specifically discussed the plagiarism and everything related.

Why wouldn't you take it as an example and start doing the same?

Why I can do that and you cannot?

Why when I ask you to prove the reliability of a source you cannot just explain it?

IU think the answer is more than clear to both of us. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example of changing one's stance? But yet you still reject another listing from the exact same news portal Hindu.com. I see what you're trying to do.

I never rejected The Hindu so please don't make up stories.

Now you a new warning:

Please stop. If you continue to add unreliable sources and revert the pag to your own version, you will be BLOCKED from editing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Please stop editing and deleting others' comments as you did on Talk:Bollywood films and plagiarism. It is considered vandalism. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the result of your edits and see what you are doing to my previous posts before you make your accusations. I'm merely undoing your mistakes.Zhanzhao (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One message must follow the other. Format your message the way you want to, you can quote my words, but you cannot edit in between my words, which makes my message messy and unclear. I also suggest you to stop reverting the article because both of us will end up with no result. Let's wait for Nishkid's reply. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helloo..... its your new edits that is screwing up the formating. Before you add anything else or undo my edits, take a look what the replies look like. THEN after you edit, PREVIEW it and see what its doing to the formating. The preview button is there for a reason.Zhanzhao (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have full right to format my message the way I want to and leave your replies isolated. I'm not responsible for how you are adding your message. You are. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its your new edits that were screwing up my entries. Sigh..... Does it kill you to preview your entries before you comit them? Sorry in advance if it does.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi I appreciate your efforts to improve articles even if we may disagree with some of your edits. Perhaps you could draw up sources which you think are reliable on the project talk page and we can rationally discuss why Shahid's decisions may or may not be appropriate. This way we can come to a clear consensus hopefully on what or what is not appropriate in regards to sources and to avoid future conflict. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said list the sites at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force#Reliable sources in Bollywood films articles and we can discuss the issue further. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I'm glad that you are sensible enough not to engage in edit warring, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by the last message. Plagiarism is a very serious subject and while I agree that several of those sites who listed often have useful information for Bollywood subjects especially on film releases and production using such sources to nack up strong claims about plagiarism is treading onto rocky ground. We should ALWAYS try to use the best sources we can. Published works such as books on the subject and newspaper are considered priority sources and have greater credibility than these sites, even if many of them contain accurate information. Imdb is undoubtedly one of the best sites on the web for films but tehcnically we do not cite it as a source because it is not an entirely professional publication. I know it seems silly but I guess people are just trying to ensure that wikipedia is as reliable as possible. What I suggest is that you use those google book source links I gave you and write a solid paragraph on plagiarism in the Bollywood article as I've redirected to. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that I want to see future edit warring and revertin over this subject. You can write a section on it at User:Zhanzhao/Bollywood as a snadbox. Once done the group can check on it and see if it can be intergrated into the main article. You see this is a very serious subject in which there are conflicting views on it. Wikipedia is used by millions of people and the main Bollywood page is watched by hundreds of people. I hope you appreciate these thoughts. Thankyou Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No we are not censored, but we are open to libel. Plagiarism and copyright is a serious issue one which wikipedia takes very seriously. If you claim certain films are copied and it affects the ability of the director or company to profit from a film then it becomes an issue. If you use book sources and major newspapers such as Times of India and the Hindu etc to back up some claims then it shouldbn't be as much of a problem. No we don't need to censor anything but we also need to ensure that the paragraph on it is of complete accuracy and reliability and whether indeed we actually need to cover it in much detail. We don't need a list of films which are accused of plagiarism either. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have views which I respect. Yes I know it can be frustrating to have additions deleted particularly when you feel they are referenced. What I suggest is that you stick to those book sources and newspapers and begin drawing upa draft at User:Zhanzhao/Bollywood. I will be watching it progress, and can offer pointers or point out anything which is likely to be reverted if you add it to the main article but I am very busy so can't devote much time to helping you write it. I don't want you to feel as if you are forced to not bother writing about a subject you are interested in, but you must also respect the community's views on what a reliable publications to back up your claims. iefilmi.com does seem to have a title which suggests it is a professional site but is it official? By the openness of the site to comments at the foot of the page and indeed some comments addressing flaws in the accuracy of the article on it then reliability is quiestionable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually a think-tank for EU and Indian film makers, sort of like an industry association established only early last year (from what I gather), hence there isn't much public info on them as compared to the older news sites. Plus the fact that they are more of a B2B rather than a comsumer oriented site/organisation does not help publicity wise. But the organisation has been interviewed by mainstream new agencies who acknowledge the organization and its roles. I.e. here and here and here. Aso actually many news sites including forbes.com and indiatimes.com now allow users to comment directly below the news/articles, so those are not valid criteria to reject a source.Zhanzhao (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was. People are permitted to comment at the bottom of reliable newspaper sites in the UK too. I was using it to bring your attention to the people questioning the reliability of the article at the bottom. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ariticle is pointing out that the films listed could either be remakes OR inspired by some other source film. The posts only object to them being labelled remakes, but does not deny the "inspiration" part. Zhanzhao (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope it's clear to you that no list will be added. Forget about listing films. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. The issue itself will be discussed in prose, which is neutral, well sourced to reliable sources, and does not contain original research. Some films which have been accused of plagiarism will be added as an example if their reference is significant and adds to the understanding of the topic. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I mentioned above that the list is not appropriate? Yes you can use examples in prose, providing they are backed up with none of those sources you originally used. See User:Zhanzhao/Bollywood, where this section should be written first. There are clearly enough sources to write a good apragraph on without using news blogs Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems there. Who said anything about lists? The only reason I ended up used the list on the old page was because the list table format already existed there, and I was merely continuing with what was being done on the page. But wait, I forgot that I'm actually arguing with someone who screws up other people's formatting with new edits, so I guess its a lost cause explaining that to you as well.... Zhanzhao (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Bollywood. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect? You blatantly ignored by request for you to write the bit about plagiarism at User:Zhanzhao/Bollywood. I spent some time setting that up for you. I said please DO NOT edit the Bollywood page until we decide whether you work is appropriate and you should write the work in User:Zhanzhao/Bollywood. Why have you ignored this?? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do check the nature of the edits, and the history page. The plagiarism section was already there in the bollywood article when I added on to it. In prose, with links, without using a list as requested. I even tried to explain the reason I used the citations, but to date, User:Shshshsh still refused to explain why iefilmi.com is in valid. As I mentioned. I have no issue with the article. Its user:Shshshsh that has an issue with me. Check the difference between our edits. The only point of contention between us appears to be the inclusion of the film Zinda to the lawsuit portion of the article, which he steadfastly refuses to accept even when I skipped the translated English article and posted the direct korean article. Because now according to him, even moneytoday.co.kr is invalid. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Despite what the other user claims, I had added sources and explained the reasons the sources were added in the Cinema Task Force for India pages as it was requested by another senior editor. When sources are rejected, I remove them and search out more reliable ones. However, there came a point of time when the other user chose to selectively ignore my explanations and removed citations even when I went through all the trouble of justifying them in detail. Case in point, after repeated requests, he still refused to explain why iefilmi.com (and now moneytoday.co.kr) was rejected. In fact in WP:CINE [[1]], where he claimed a discussion took place, it was basically only between me and the other editors, even though the other user was the one rejecting the sites and I was the one asking him why he rejected them (up til today when he finally entered the discussion). For the most recent edit, I was merely following procedure by citing the original korean news source, then quoting a blog which had translated the contents of another website verbatim into English (hence making it fact rather than opinion), and asked him why the original korean source is questionable, at the same time explaining in detail why I though it was. The user again sidestepped the issue and 1st undid the changes multiple times, then changed the topic to the blog instead of the korean site. In essence, this other editor also has a habit of simply undoing complete edits without checking individual sources, simply giving a short "read WP:XX" response, even when I went down the points on WP:RS in detail and asked him why my explanations fail the test. He should have at least removed the blog while leaving the korean site if he found the blog objectionable, yet he just simply removed everything as can be seen from the page's history logs. You can see the justification posts I made here. [[2]]

Decline reason:

The 3RR rule applies to all of us, even when we're sure we are right. I've been in this situation, and I know how hard it is to resist reverting one more time and go to the solutions at WP:DISPUTE instead. But reverting back and forth really is disruptive- and besides, it's useless, since the other person can revert just as often as you can. Better to stop reverting and try something else. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 19 February 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry for the mislead, I'll abide with the judgements of the administrators. However, as the other user had made a claim that a source I quoted was already raised in WP:RSN, which I had no chance to officially answer User:Peregrine Fisher since I was blocked just minutes after. AS such, I just made an entry at WP:RSN without logging in. I am just making a notification of my actions, in case the act is mistaken for sockpuppetry (I also signed with my name on that edit in any case). Hope this is ok and sorry for any inconvenience caused, since this is the only page I can officially touch at the moment. 218.186.12.208 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 14:40, 19 February 2009 (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.

Hi User:Sandstein, thanks for the reply. As I mentioned, the above is not an appeal, justa notification. I will wait out the block. The only exception I made was to clarify and reply on the source raised on WP:RSN since it was the matter which brought about the edit war. I have no intention at all of hiding my intentions or identity for that edit (since I signed with my user name in that entry), and would rather do it out in the open rather than pretend to be someone else. I just hope I'm following the right procedure regarding WP:SOCK#LEGIT : "openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks" when doing so.Zhanzhao (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an illegitimate use of alternate accounts. It's one thing to have a secondary account to do encyclopedia maintenance (e.g. vandal reverting), it's another to use an alternate account while you are blocked in order to edit in regards to the same dispute you were blocked over. So I've reset your block to 24 hours from your last edit made under the IP. Mango juice^talk 19:56, 19 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there, I would like to appeal the block extension as I was unintentional and unaware that I was not allowed to use the secondary account to pose a question/reply under WP:RSN - something which is considered a constructive Wikipedia activity. With regards to the block, although it was in relation to dispute, I did not use to revert or vandalize any article where the edit war occurred (as can be checked from the IP history timed as of this post), but to ask about a source under the neutral WP:RSN in a constructive manner, and also in reply to another editor's request Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs). As I evidenced in my posts and through the signature when I made the original post in WP:RSN, I had no intention to mask my identity during this edit, and even notified another editor (though an unusual manner I admit via an unblock request) of my actions while admitting it on this talkpage itself, also stating the uncertainty of whether it is the right way to do it. I could masked my identity but chose not to do so as I want everything done openly. As this is the 1st time I have made this mistake regarding my misintepretation of the WP:EVADE, I ask for leniency on this matter and will not repeat this again.

Decline reason:

No. If you are blocked, you are not entitled to edit until the block expires; that is the purpose of a block. Your actions under the secondary account were not blockable by themselves, which is why your block was only reset and not extended to a longer period of time. The reset was valid. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 20 February 2009 (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 see, thanks for clearing that up clearly for me, much appreciated!