Misplaced Pages

User talk:195.135.49.168: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:52, 7 December 2021 editJargo Nautilus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,443 edits this is your final chance to redeem yourself | note: the indentations were again wrong← Previous edit Revision as of 14:53, 7 December 2021 edit undo195.135.49.168 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
::::::::Come to think of it I am almost fascinated talking to you. If this was the forum for random intellectuals encounters, I would certainly like to confront you with provocative pieces of information, such as that Fulbright-backed study of Triad infiltration of Taiwanese politics (circa year 2000) which found it at at least 50% at the local level. Too bad Misplaced Pages is not for that. ::::::::Come to think of it I am almost fascinated talking to you. If this was the forum for random intellectuals encounters, I would certainly like to confront you with provocative pieces of information, such as that Fulbright-backed study of Triad infiltration of Taiwanese politics (circa year 2000) which found it at at least 50% at the local level. Too bad Misplaced Pages is not for that.
::::::::: Are you agreeing to redeem yourself? If not, I will be carrying through with my report to the administrator that has already occurred. Bear in mind that my conditions are that you delete the misquoted comment of mine from April from the article ] and also from your own user page here. I honestly am not concerned with "bias" (again, I've never denied being biased). ] (]) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ::::::::: Are you agreeing to redeem yourself? If not, I will be carrying through with my report to the administrator that has already occurred. Bear in mind that my conditions are that you delete the misquoted comment of mine from April from the article ] and also from your own user page here. I honestly am not concerned with "bias" (again, I've never denied being biased). ] (]) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist; as such I do not believe in "redemption".

Revision as of 14:53, 7 December 2021

This user has compounded an incident of a personal attack against Jargo Nautilus, now on two strikes out of three

I am officially informing this user that they have compounded an incident of a personal attack against me over at the article Talk:China–Lithuania relations, which is now on two strikes out of three (on the third strike, I will officially report the multiple incidents of harassment to the official administrator channels). Previously, a seemingly different user (though, it could also be the same person since both users were IP rather than registered) performed a personal attack against me in the aforementioned talk article. I called out the original personal attack, and after much careful deliberation, I decided to take the measures I deemed appropriate and necessary in order to resolve the dispute. I politely informed the original user that I felt threatened; at the same time, I told them that I did not want to inflame the dispute and would rather we move away from disruptive personal attacks and focus on the article at hand. As it stands, this second user has decided to not only perform their own personal attack against me but also to "restore" the previous personal attack of the other user. This is obviously disruptive behaviour... I've already essentially reported the first user for harassing me (through semi-official means since I don't want to escalate the situation), and now a second user has blatantly ignored my original report and is performing even further harassment against me, even though I've already indicated that I feel threatened and would much rather focus on the article at hand than escalate the situation to the official administrator channels. This current message in and of itself serves as an official marker of the proper procedures having taken place; the entire point of posting a message like this is to prove that I've already tried to resolve the dispute peacefully and in private before taking the dispute to the official administrator channels. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The following is a quotation from your Misplaced Pages user page (emphasis mine):
As another disclaimer, I am actually personally afraid of Chinese agents. Throwing around accusations that any random person is a Chinese agent might not be the wisest thing to do, but I have actually personally been advised by my family members, most of whom have differing views about China compared to me (they either have moderate views on China or they are highly nationalistic towards China; I'm the only real anti-China dissident in my family), that I should refrain from making "anti-China" statements online, or else I might place the lives and livelihoods of my family members in China in imminent danger. I have been told that Chinese agents may intercept my family members in China and interrogate them, confiscate property or even arrest and torture them if my dissident activities become too prominent. So, even though you, In wkpd, feel personally offended that I have, at times, addressed you as an "agent of the CCP", I don't think you personally understand just what lengths the Chinese government will actually go to in order to silence Chinese diaspora dissidents such as myself. Even if my own life is not in danger, my dissident activities can still legitimately place the lives of my family members living in China in danger. In fact, the main reason why I am pro-Taiwan and anti-China is that I know that my human rights will generally be respected if I ever cross the Taiwanese government in some way, whereas it is clear to me that the Chinese government would happily dispose of me if it knew what I was doing and had the chance to get its hands on me.
(Jargo Nautilus), please refrain from removing contributions by other users exposing your partiality to the subject under discussion, in your own words - this practice is well established and also explains why Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between registered and unregistered users (registered users may be biased, unregistered users may be not). This comment has been reviewed by another user, highlighted in green and not questioned.
May I also point out that you have edited this page and the article in a way that requires manual editing to revert; are you doing this on purpose, i.e. vandalism?
Clearly, quoting you in not a personal attack on you, or am I missing something?195.135.49.168 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not bothered to read your convoluted reply here. But I just want to ask you something. Do you understand what it means to conduct a personal attack (WP:PA)? Like, it doesn't even matter whether you think you are right or wrong or whatever... A personal attack is easily able to be identified no matter the situation. The definition of a personal attack is when a user is criticised not for their actions but rather for their qualities as a person... The reason that personal attacks are frowned upon at Misplaced Pages is that they are extremely disruptive and are not conducive to improving the actual content within the article itself. Clearly, your comments (are you the same person as the previous IP user? I really have no idea) are only intended to attack me personally rather than to logically critique my edits and improve the actual content within the article itself. You are basically trying to "witchhunt" me or whatever. It doesn't matter whether you think you are right; harassment is harassment no matter who is right. Basically, you have to stop with this behaviour or else you could get into serious trouble. I've already reported you to an administrator in private; I haven't taken the dispute to the highest levels yet. I honestly just want to resolve the dispute peacefully, and I do not intend to escalate it to ridiculous levels. Your insistence on harassing me is not improving the content of the article in the slightest; this is harassment, plain and simple, and it is plain to see this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have zero interest in you or in "personally" attacking you (I have no idea who you are). You are a biased party and you yourself said so; saying that you said so has nothing to do with a "personal attack".195.135.49.168 (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
At this point, it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the administrators think. I am now waiting for the first administrator that I contacted in private to reply to me. Once they have replied to me, I will figure out what to do from there. Hopefully, the dispute can be resolved peacefully. However, if it can't be resolved as it stands, then I think I will be forced to take this dispute to the official administrator channels. I've already given you several chances at this point to redeem yourself without being reported to the administrators. Clearly, you are completely uninterested in pursuing any kind of peaceful dispute resolution. Right now, I am being relatively polite and civil. I am not interested in attacking you or whatever, but I am really rather concerned that you are unable to recognise how your behaviour has crossed the line on multiple occasions at this point. It does not seem that you are willing to redeem yourself right now, and I honestly feel quite threatened by your behaviour at this point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Another comment — Has it occurred to you that I want to remove my lengthy comment from April that you misquoted in the article Talk:China–Lithuania relations because it contains very sensitive information? I honestly don't care that you think I'm biased; I've already told you that I've never denied this; I'm obviously critical of the Chinese government, plus I have Taiwanese ancestry. With that being said, the information in that comment of mine from April is extremely sensitive, since it discusses my family members, among other things. That comment was left on my own user page many months ago during a period of mental health difficulties for me. I was inactive for several months and neglected to remove that comment from my user page, which is out of date at this point. At this point, I am solely interested in removing the quote of mine from April; I have never challenged the notion that I'm biased. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not consider such information sensitive (your IP is not known nor is your personal identity known or traceable), and if it were, it was your decision to publish it in a public forum - you were effectively flaunting your bias as a feather in your hat. Since I am not aware of any government prosecuting Misplaced Pages users in the way you describe, I consider this scaremongering and playing victim.195.135.49.168 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you not see the part just now where I mentioned that my previous publishing of that comment back in April was due to mental health issues? Obviously, those issues are not affecting me at the present moment, and I've decided that I don't want to display that information anymore (I already deleted it from my own user page). Plus, it's quite obvious that the quote from April (which, if you pay attention, was actually a specific reply to another user from a past discussion) has been quoted completely out of context in this article Talk:China–Lithuania relations. In terms of the information being in a public forum, has it not occurred to you that you are now making the information even MORE public than it already was? There are different degrees of "publicness"; it's not so black and white. Obviously, moving my comment from my own user page and into the talk page of an article is an escalation in the degree of "publicness". My own user page is indeed public, but it is not AS public as the talk page of that article. You've escalated the degree of publicness of my comment, and I've already indicated multiple times that I don't consent to this action. It's not a matter of censorship but rather a matter of protecting myself. If I have information about myself that's public, then it was my fault for posting it in the first place, but it is also your fault for propagating that information even further into the public eye even after I've clearly indicated that I do not consent to this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry about your mental health difficulties (saw this just as you were to type the follow-up comment) and I support you fully in recovering from them. However, mental health issues does not mean that private individuals like me are obligated to give you a free pass. Please check which type of copyright governs your contributions on Misplaced Pages and please be clear about it in the future.195.135.49.168 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Come to think of it I am almost fascinated talking to you. If this was the forum for random intellectuals encounters, I would certainly like to confront you with provocative pieces of information, such as that Fulbright-backed study of Triad infiltration of Taiwanese politics (circa year 2000) which found it at at least 50% at the local level. Too bad Misplaced Pages is not for that.
Are you agreeing to redeem yourself? If not, I will be carrying through with my report to the administrator that has already occurred. Bear in mind that my conditions are that you delete the misquoted comment of mine from April from the article Talk:China–Lithuania relations and also from your own user page here. I honestly am not concerned with "bias" (again, I've never denied being biased). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist; as such I do not believe in "redemption".