| Revision as of 16:18, 17 April 2015 view sourceOccultZone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:30, 17 April 2015 view source OccultZone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits +Next edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| So what you think about that alternative? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | So what you think about that alternative? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::In fact you are also correct about the problems that they were arising only after 23 March, the day when a unwarranted block was imposed. Nothing really before that. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | ::In fact you are also correct about the problems that they were arising only after 23 March, the day when a unwarranted block was imposed. Nothing really before that. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::Check ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 17:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:30, 17 April 2015
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
Hi, if you dropped by because you were directed to check on me for whatever reason, do read the note on my main user page. It will save you a lot of time and provide a lot of context to whats happeneing between me and my accuser.
Yes, I'm related to DanS.
Random thought: Good thing about wikipedia is that vandals may buzz around like flies, but the admins can easily take care of them with a simple page protect, especially if they hide behind anonymous IPs;D
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Lee Kuan Yew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
On From Third World to First
Hi Zhanzhao.
I've managed to get a copy of LKY's memoirs (second volume) from my brother-in-law. I realized all three editions of this book (SPH Times edition, Marshall Cavendish edition, US HarperCollins edition) have different pagination. What I have is the SPH first edition, and it appears some references on the article use the US HarperCollins edition. Should I change them to correspond with the first edition? What do you think? DORC (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @DORC:, as long as you indicate clearly the exact edition you are using, it should be fine. I don't usually use physical book references, but I do see that is the standard other wikipedians follow. More info in ferencing is better than less. For example see how the China Sky article references the print from the "Times Triangle Edition". Zhanzhao (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! DORC (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
AN
The reason why I continued to persuade for this all, because you continued to watch over my contributions. Yes the interaction ban is right choice, but there are clearly better things to try in this case. Had you promised not to watch over my contributions? I would've never made any attempt to find any of your violations of sock puppetry policies. You had also considered my edits to Lee Kuan Yew as following your contribution history, though you might have knew now that I was there only for fixing a factual error.
I can propose an alternative instead. How about you try to disengage voluntarily? No comments(where I have written) on any boards or user talk pages unless they clearly concerns you. Even if someone else is canvassing you, keep it limited with the article and its talk page. Same applies on me towards you.
I-Ban is not as easy as you are thinking. It locks any contributions to same articles, and it is far dubious than what you seem to be thinking. Check Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Interaction ban
So what you think about that alternative? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- In fact you are also correct about the problems that they were arising only after 23 March, the day when a unwarranted block was imposed. Nothing really before that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)