Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 10 February 2010

It is currently 21:26 where I am

User:Zhang He/Navbar

For 2009 discussions, please visit the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zhang_He/2009

January 2010

Discussions archived

An archive of January 2010 discussions can be found here.

February 2010

Thanks

For reverting that unhelpful comment on my talk page. --NeilN 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. - Zhang He (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"One little mistake"

As I tried to explain to you the last time, if this were an isolated incident it would not be a big deal. This is a long term pattern of yours, and if you won't take it seriously you are going to keep getting these types of messages, and will probably wind up going through the unpleasantness of WP:RFC/U. You need to try and learn from your errors and not repeat them again and again. Every time someone tries to explain this stuff to you you act like it's the first time it's ever come up and the other user is being overly rude or aggressive. You may want to consider the possibility that it is you, and not everybody else, who has a problem. I would again suggest to you that you consider the adopt a user program. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think I request reviews from Apparition? I request them so I can learn from the mistakes I've made and improve. I politely ask that you leave me alove. I will consider any other things from you harassment. - Zhang He (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that you do have the right to request that Beeblebrox leave your talk page, but I've never seen him say or do anything towards you that was out of line. You do have a long history of bad reverts, and you did rollback an editor who was trying to add <references/> to an article and eventually made an erroneous report to AIV. Honestly, not only is that not blatant vandalism, it is blatantly constructive. Beeblebrox never threatened you or anything, but did correctly point out that you could be blocked for edit warring. Everything that I've seen him say here is true. I know that when someone is criticizing you, it is easy to take it more harshly than it really is. From a somewhat outside view, his comments and tone are perfectly fine. They may be a little stern, but when commenting on a long-term issue, sternness may be necessary. Instead of dismissing Beeblebrox's comments and (seemingly) believing that he has something against you personally, I would implore you to take his advice, admit that you screwed up, and just don't let it happen again.

You seem to have a tendency to think that some people who don't agree with you have something against you. Remember, that most users are simply trying to do what they believe is best for the project. I really do believe that you have made good strides in improving your anti-vandalism work, but, as in this case, you do still make some bad mistakes. When someone criticizes an edit of yours, listen to them, if you don't believe that it was a mistake, then explain your thoughts, but, if it was a mistake, own up and correct the problem. Remember, my first message to you came in the form of a template . If you listen and learn from others' criticisms and comments, they could end up helping you as much, or more, than I have. Apparition /Mistakes 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. If you'll take a look at this and this, you'll see I wasn't the only one reverting its edits, so I don't think it's fair that I should be the only one warned.
Also, this is where his comments could be considered a personal attack, especially the summary he used. - Zhang He (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right in that you weren't the only person who messed up there, but you did mess up there and have a history of this sort of thing. If this were an isolated incident, then this wouldn't be such a big deal, but it really is part of a larger pattern. If the other editors had a history of this sort of thing, then they'd likely be getting these messages, too. If I went in and made some erroneous WP:MOS edit, then most likely, I would most likely get an explanation in an edit summary. If I did it again, I'd likely get a comment on my talk page. If I continued doing it, then it would build up into warnings and possibly sanctions. I'm afraid, that's the point we are at now.

While Beeblebrox's comment there probably could've been worded differently, the fact is that you really do have a history with bad reverts. The comment really was true and there wasn't really a personal attack. Some of your behavior as of late looks to be pushing on some people's patience. Take a look at User talk:Apparition11#Your review to see that it is more there is more concern that one admin with this. You've now "banned" two people from your talk page in the past couple of weeks and have been extremely uncivil in several of your edit summaries and comments over the past month or so. Seriously, if you don't display that you understand other people's criticisms and will strive to correct problematic behaviors quickly, I'm afraid that it won't be long before another WP:ANI or an WP:RfC/U opens up and sanctions are made. The way it looks, it seems that you've started thinking that everyone who disagrees with you or your actions are against you. This may not be the truth, but it is the way it looks when going over your edits. You have to realize that nobody is here just to piss you off or get on your nerves. Apparition /Mistakes 08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of surface-to-air missiles

The article should be renamed as it only shows MANPADS, not SAMs. Virtually all long range SAM systems as well as non-portable systems are missing. At best, it should have a "stub" template put in. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There you go. I've undone my edits to both the article and your talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are made of smooth and amazing. Wanna help me beef up the article in question with some more info? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: 99.236.221.124's edits are not vandalism.

There is no US-Mexico border wall; in fact, serious talk about such a border has never begun in Congress. It is an unconstructive edit at the very least.Boomshadow  _contribs 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, understandable. - Zhang He (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

96.243.180.45's (me!!) talk page edit was not vandalism

Nothing about this edit is vandalism. I really did say it was creepy. I wrote that when I originally removed the image from the article, shortly before it was replaced and then removed by another user. I do not understand why you think this was vandalism. --96.243.180.45 (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)