| Revision as of 18:57, 1 September 2006 editNat Krause (talk | contribs)15,397 edits Be aware of 3RR← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:58, 1 September 2006 edit undoEdipedia (talk | contribs)565 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;"> | |||
| ==Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]== | |||
| {| class="user-block" | |||
| || ] | |||
| || You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. | |||
| |}<!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the is 3rr hours. ''']''' 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)</div> | |||
| == "NPOV" == | |||
| I do not see how my edit in article ] has been POV. I simply included the fact that minority tribes were around China, which has been an undisputed part of the article for a long time until you removed it. I have explained my edit in my edit summary. See also ] for an explanation of NPOV. ]]] 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's just ridiculous. Would you bother to take some time reading basic Chinese history at all? The term begins in the Han Dynasty. There wasn't "Mongolia", "Russia" and "Korea" at that time. "Han Chinese" is not only a modern term, it is also a historic one. At that time the "Han Chinese" didn't refer to themselves as "Chinese", or "中国人" - they refer to themselves as "Han people", to distinguish from the minority tribes around China, e.g. in the Song dynasty, the Jurchens, the Mongols etc. When the Mongols overran the Song Dynasty, they classified the people into four levels: The Mongols, the Tibetans, the Han, and the "Southerners".]]] 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that's because the term is still in use. ''"It was during the Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty that the various tribes of China began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group"''. Surely, this is about the past? Please '''do not edit the disputed part when the discussion is still going on'''.]]] 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| Per | |||
| Please avoid using abusive ] as per ] and ]. Thanks and happy editing.<!-- Template:Edit summary personal -->]]] 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The warning is clearly described and the diff is given. Please do not troll on my talk page. Feel free to do so in your sandbox; in the meantime, I have more articles to edit. Thank you. ]]] 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I would suggest you to refrain from editing article ] because you seem to have a very, very basic understanding of what ] really is, e.g. and . You also seem to misunderstand ], seen in these edits: and . You can see that some of these paragraphs are absolutely not POV (some are along the borders, but should not be removed completely). For example, this paragraph: "''This also derives from another Chinese dynasty, the ]''". How is it POV to say that "Tang people" derives from the "Tang dynasty"? That is perfectly accurate and true. I would suggest you to put more effort into learning some basic information before you make these controversial edits and call other editors "silly". See ] a soapbox and WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. ]]] 05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispution == | |||
| I must warn you again '''''not to edit during dispution'''''. Even if you are correct it does not justify your actions, and in this case I'm pretty sure you aren't. Editing while in dispution does not help either side. I suggest you to discuss in the ] instead of deleting large chunks of useful information just because you think they're "weird". ]]] 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your reverts on ] == | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> ] 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| ] This is your '''last warning'''. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered to be ''']'''. You ''will'' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages and your talk page will be ''protected'' from editing if you do it again. <!-- Template:Wr4 (final level warning) --> ]|]|] 11:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| ] It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on ]. Please remain ] and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate ].<!-- from Template:Civil2-n --> ]|]|] 11:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Warning == | |||
| :If it is accepted by other editors, how come you broke the 3RR in less than forty minutes, hmm? Your claim was also invalid because I definitely didn't, well, "accept" it. | |||
| :I have explained over and over why the term "around" is used, and so have many other editors. I'm not sure I understood you completely this time, but Bill Clinton is not even a Chinese - we just call him an Anglo-Celtic person. The term Han Chinese, as said in the article, is used to distinguish the Han people from other Chinese minorities, and these minorities, usually Chinese, seldom appear outside the Chinese sphere of influence. ]|]|] 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have also deleted your warning. I wasn't edit warring, you were. I requested the page for protection, you requested to unprotect it, and then made four edits against consensus to be reverted by two other users. These illegitimate warnings are considered vandalism, and I wish in good faith that you will discuss in a civil and logical manner rather than resorting to tit-for-tatting on user pages. ]|]|] 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your reverts on ] == | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> ] 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==3RR block on ]== | |||
| ] You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. | |||
| Note that this is your 4th violation the the three revert rule, so I have blocked you for 48 hours. If you continue to be disruptive, you risk longer or permenant blocks. --] 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ]|]|] 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That's just your imagination. ] 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reversions again== | |||
| This is rediculous. You have now violated the three revert rule AGAIN on your own user page. As it is your user page, and the policy is vague over such pages, I will not block you, but I am protecting it. Furthermore, I think that you are pushing very closely to a full ban through your continued disruption. Please consider your actions very carefully if you want to remain on Misplaced Pages. --] 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not juding who is or isnt a sockpuppet. For one thing, the fact that i've already interacted with you means that I'm not in the best position to judge. However, Misplaced Pages policy and courtsey states that when such accusations are made in good face, users should not hide them by reverting their user page etc., but should face them and debunk them. I'll happily unprotect your user page in a few days, hopefully when this sockpuppet thing has moved on and, depending on the result, you can move the note. | |||
| :In the meantime, perhaps you could reflect on how your actions up to now have lead people to believe that you would use such tactics.... --] 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism to ]'s userpage == | |||
| {{Tpv}}] 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Be aware of 3RR == | |||
| Ha ha, that's a pretty fun one, Edipedia, coming from you. I notice that you and your sockpuppet Yepre have reverted that article five times today.—]<sup>(])</sup> 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||