User talk:6k7de3x4v

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Shenzhen. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shenzhen

Go to Talk:Shenzhen and discuss your reasoning for removal of Deng and See Also. In the meantime, I have reverted back to the stable version, i.e. before any reverting regarding the two was done. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing of Deng is for the safety of certain ethnic groups. Also Shenzhen is NOT the place to advertise other SEZ.

I asked you to go to that page, not here. And what ethnic issues? What safety? And how are we advertising other SEZs? The article only mentions the group of SEZs, not all of them. In my mind, if X is part of a larger and significant group Y, then Y should be mentioned. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is NOT recommended to mention Deng as his name will be associated with certain ethnic group. Other SEZ do not do for Shenzhen, just because Shenzhen is a success, do not take the success work of Shenzhen and link to other SEZ and other COUNTRIES. If other SEZ want to be successful, this is not the place. Shenzhen is Shenzhen.

How will his name be associated with Hakkas or Han? There is/was no mention of him being a Hakka or Han anywhere in this article. I can make no sense out of your SEZ argument. There are no countries linked there. For a guide on "See also" sections, see this. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is the safety of Hakka people. Even though mentioning Deng in opening up Shenzhen is positive, you forgot the negative side. Are you familiar with ethnic issues and are you Hakka?

(6k7de3x4v (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

what safety? what is the negative side? Urban problems? He still was the opener of SZ, regardless of the effects, so you still have not addressed the question. and no, I am not Hakka. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot associate Deng publicly with Shenzhen as this will cause ethnic issues. Are you Chinese or foreigner?(6k7de3x4v (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Explain how it will cause ethnic issues. I am from Luoyang, and I would have known about this if my parents did. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you are in Luoyang which only has your ethnic group so you will not understand. I believe that you are a young person with no real life experience.(6k7de3x4v (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

[accidental twinkle warn removed by author]

I am contributing very positively to Shenzhen. But others can't just link the success of Shenzhen to other cities and countries. Take a look at Hong Kong, HK does not link to Shenzhen.

Irrelevant to your behaviour. That's because most of Hong Kong's lead section is devoted to One Country, Two Systems (一国两制). Even then, Shenzhen is mentioned in the history section. It doesn't take much (CTRL+F) to find even a mention of SZ. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Shenzhen constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Tiderolls 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please note that Wikipedia has a rule that requires that people do not Edit war--that is, you may not just continually revert the changes of others. While edit warring in general is forbidden, there is a very strict, specific rule called WP:3RR that says that you may not revert the work of other editors more than 3 times in a single 24 hour period. You have already passed that on Shenzhen. Since you are a new user and presumably don't know this rule, I will issue you this warning. Note that if you make any more reverts on that article today, you will be reported and your account will be blocked. What you need to do now is go to the article's talk page and discuss the change you want. I can tell you, though, that you may not remove the See Also section--this is not about transferring the success of one city to another. See Also's are fundamental sections of most longer Wikipedia articles, because they help people navigate through related topics. But, again, most importantly, stop edit-warring immediately. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not causing an edit war. Others can't just link the success of Shenzhen to other cities and other COUNTRIES are also listed. This is not called ethical and right.

The "cause' of an edit war is irrelevant. If I had not already engaged you on my user talk I would block you for violating the three revert rule. You are reverting and not disussing. That is a violation. Tiderolls 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is, in fact, the whole point of WP:3RR. Inevitably, all of us come to a situation where we are sure we are right. Without 3RR 2 participants equally sure of their editing decision could revert indefinitely. At this point, you are required to come and discuss the issue on Talk:Shenzhen. There's already a section at the end of the page where you can do that. Please let us help explain how Wikipedia articles work, so that you can continue editing here within our guidelines and policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked him (see above) to go there to voice his opinions, and even gave him a link, but he oddly showed up here. Not particularly pleasant. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AN3 Report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --nn123645 (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

HXL49 is actually from Hong Kong and trying to subvert the city of Shenzhen's prosperity. The guy is a fake when he mentions that he is from Luoyang. What a big fake.

Personal attack, right there. You have no evidence for your claim. I only speak Mandarin and if I spoke Cantonese I would have indicated so on my user page. In addition, almost all of my contributions on the Chinese Wikipedia have been in simplified Chinese. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Shenzhen. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B694kp8d for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Minimac (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A warning and some advice

I noticed that you had stopped reverting after the warning you were issued regarding the three revert rule. Given this and the fact that you've recently started editing and may not have been aware that this type of behavior is unacceptable, I am not going to block you at this time. However, please be assured that a block will be swift in coming if you continue the edit war, as you are now well aware that this is inappropriate to do, regardless of how right you think you are.

I do see that you've begun to discuss the disputed change. That's a good first step, but right now, it looks like consensus is not with you. None of us win 'em all, and at some point, you may just have to walk away. That's not to say you may not continue to try to gain consensus, but it is to say you should not again make the disputed edit until and unless you gain it. You will also be expected to be civil, to make a reasonable effort to engage rather than dismiss the points of those who disagree with you, and to refrain from just repeating yourself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Shenzhen

Apologies in case this wasn't clear before. We have two rules about edit warring. One is easy--more than 3 reverts in 24 hours results in a block for passing 3RR. However, the more general rule on edit warring is that you cannot just keep changing something because you don't like it. If others have reverted your changes, and then a discussion has taken place on the article's talk page, and the consensus is that your changes are not appropriate, the only thing you can do is keep discussing the issue on the talk page. If you are still certain you are correct, you may follow the process called dispute resolution, which involves a series of steps that can be taken to involve other editors in the dispute. However, if you continue to remove the See Also section on Shenzhen against consensus, I (or someone else) will report you for edit warring, and you may be blocked from editing. Please try to look at what we are saying on the article's talk page--you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a See Also section means--it is not an ethical decision, it is not about sharing success, it is simply a way for someone who reads about the topics in Shenzhen to learn more about related topics. It's just like how in a journal article, people often add "For Further Reading" sections, and suggest some other articles that people might also want to read. It's not saying anything bad about Shenzhen. It's not saying the other articles are "equal" to Shenzhen. It's simply saying "Hey, remember how we said Shenzhen is a special political division of China? Well, we have some information about how that system works in China, so if you want to learn about that, why don't you look here?" That's all. Please don't get blocked for edit warring for such a trivial issue. You clearly have useful things to contribute to Wikipedia, so it would be a shame if this stops you from doing that. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I respect Qwyrxian's opinion, but I believe that if this user was not clear on the concept of edit warring they should've requested assistance. I will be reporting 6k7de3x4v to the 3RR noticeboard. Tiderolls 04:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You will find the report by clicking here. Tiderolls 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Shenzhen. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Thanks, Tide Rolls. It didn't make much difference, as this editor continued to edit war in nearly the same manner after my "final warning". 6k7de3x4v, if you really want to keep editing Wikipedia, I am willing to help you do so after your block is up, but if you're not willing to abide by our rules, you really should consider this block a good time to walk away. Let me know here--you can continue to edit this page while blocked, although be careful not to use this as an alternative forum to vent your complaints about the aricle. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

6k7de3x4v, I hope that you accept Qwyrxian's offer of assistance. They are an experienced editor and would be able to give you valuable advice regarding editing on Wikpedia. Tiderolls 05:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)