User talk:Aceman626

February 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Republic of China (1912–1949) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning[edit]

Republic of China (1912–1949) and Taiwan are two separate articles. Please read each article again and search talk page discussions to understand the current consensus about how we divide different subjects. If you are unwilling to follow the consensus, you may find yourself losing your editing privileges. Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aceman626 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a history expert having studied the subject for over 30 years, with a focus on military history and asian history. Found mistakes in article, spent hours making corrections to make sure everything is accurate, and provided reasons and facts for doing so. Yet I have been blocked without being given any legitimate reasons. In regards to the edits, the main flag was wrong, the associated links were to the wrong flag, and the main emblem was also wrong. These are very obvious and blatant errors. After I made edits the admins keep talking about an article about Taiwan for some reason, which is completely irrelevant to the edits I made. I also fixed an error in the United Nations article, which is what brought me to this page. Every edit is factual and can be easily proven by history books, Google, or even by other Wiki articles. There is not a single history professor in this world that would disagree with me. I would be happy to cite sources, of which there are many. Aceman626 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The article changes you have made may or may not be improvements, and if you are willing to civilly explain your reasons, and provide reliable sources for your opinions, rather than just dismissing the opinions of others with a "I know better than you so you can just take my word for it" attitude then it will be possible for you to discuss the issues with other editors with a view to trying to persuade them, and I hope that a consensus will be able to be reached. However, there can be no question of unblocking you unless and until you unequivocally withdraw the personal attacks you have made on other editors, and undertake not to do the same again. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors who are unwilling to collaborate, or who choose to make remarks intended to be offensive to other editors, have no place here. I suggest that you carefully re-read what you have written about other editors, think about how they are likely to see to people reading them, and then post a new unblock request which addresses this issue. If so, it may be possible for you to unblocked and to make the useful contributions which I am sure you should be able to make. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A nickel's worth of free advice[edit]

Your unblock rationale is nonsense, so you know. I noticed your edits at United Nations, which seem correct, so I think you are a good-faith contributor. For that reason, I want to help you navigate this problem. First, when blocked the only successful reaction is to kowtow. Our administrators will not unblock you because you claim you were right. You need to sorrowfully admit that your disruptive editing was wrong and therefore pledge to discuss your edits on the talk pages. If you cannot do that then just stay away from editing. Second, issues of politics (like the China/Taiwan issue) attract partisans and cranks of all sorts. These editors are out to right great wrongs and can't be reasoned with, which is why we don't tolerate them. Wikipedia is collaborative in nature. If your editing looks to us like rank partisanship, you can expect to blocked. Don't insist that you're right and continue to edit war. Instead, discuss the matter on the talk page. Thirdly, Wikipedia suffers a number of repeat offenders that create new accounts just to stupidly push their point of view. You might be one of them. If you're not, then please try being a Wikipedian by editing areas other than just Taiwan and take the time to build relationships. Single-purpose editors create the appearance of not being here to write an encyclopedia and when their edits are problematic we crack down on them. Employing the appeal to authority fallacy "I am a history expert having studied the subject for over 30 years" undercuts your message. Cranks claim to be experts. Actual experts lay out the facts. Finally, since you have zero reputation you need to prove to us that you know what you're doing and Wikipedia relies on verifiability. You say "I would be happy to cite sources, of which there are many" but you haven't provided a single one. Cranks claim that everybody knows what's right. Experts point to published sources. In closing, please consider what I've said and change your ways. It would be a shame to have a good-faith contributor leave because they were too arrogant and ignorant to read our instructions and play by the rules. I think you'll find that adopting a different mindset will help your cause. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chris troutman. Aceman626, if you are willing to discuss your edits with reason, I am more than happy to sit down and discuss each problem in your recent string of edits. China/Taiwan is a very sensitive topic, and there are consensus on how we treat these topics based on years of discussion (WP:COMMONNAME is one of the discussions that often comes up). I can quickly point out some of the obvious errors in this edit: ([1]).

Pinyin replaced Wade-Giles only in the 1950s; the scope of Republic of China (1912–1949) stops at 1949. That's why we use Wade-Giles for the official spelling for this article.
Beiyang government was the internationally recognized Republic of China until 1928, which is why we display File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928.svg for 1912–1928.
It appears that you are also trying to replace Twelve Symbols national emblem with File:National Emblem of the Republic of China.svg, claiming that the former image is "wrong". Even when assuming good faith, it does appear that you are trying to erase traces of Beiyang government, which again, was the internationally recognized Republic of China up until 1928.
Our articles for National Anthem of the Republic of China and National Flag Anthem of the Republic of China specifically says these anthems are adopted in 1937, not 1928 (1928 is highly unlikely given the political context; if you have a source, please cite).

Republic of China (1912–1949) describes the political entity that is Republic of China only prior to 1949. Post-1949 political entity and its content belongs to Taiwan. If you would like to challenge this existing consensus, I suggest you search our database in Talk:Taiwan first as similar discussion have come up many times before. Alex Shih (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lesson for the "so-called" admins[edit]

First off, Alex Shih. Happy to discuss my edits at any time, but let's remember it is YOU who is doing the threatening and the blocking. (Redacted)

Before we begin:

1) I don't care about Wade Giles and didn't make those changes. If you even bothered to look at the entire edit history, you'll find that it is obvious there were at least two other people editing at the same time, which probably got comingled into my edit history. It only takes 2 mins to figure that out. You spend all day on here and claim to be the expert here, so you should be the one that is more detail oriented.

2) On the same note, why didn't you find out about the CORRECT edit I made on the United Nations article? What do you have to say about that? If you are going to criticize someone, then do the research and look at their entire body of work.

3) Same with the national anthem, didn't edit it. Do your job.

Now time for a history lesson and some logic exercises.

1) Why didn't you mention anything about the CORRECT edit I made on the flag link? Why did you conveniently leave that out? Why are you linking the 5-star communist flag to the ROC, which has a different flag? Or maybe you think the 5-star flag is the ROC's? Do you also mix up North and South Korea? Why did you blatantly promote false information? Do you want more evidence, or are you going to waste my time? What do you have to say about that?

2) The Beiyang government has its own article, did I edit it? The answer is NO. The article I am editing is about a related but much boarder topic, the Republic of China. You try way too hard to mix the two articles, why is that?

3) Did I delete the flag of the Beiyang government? The answer is NO. I flipped the order, which is correct. When you click on the link to the ROC article, the wrong flag shows up as thumbnail, which I fixed. Since you are such an an expert, you should know this basic detail, I assume.

4) The 5 color flag of the Beiyang government is not representative of all of the ROC, because it is insignificant from both a length point of view (very short, ended 1928), and a historical perspective (the government did nothing). The ROC government, on the other hand, carried the Blue Sky and White Sun flag and symbol throughout the Northern Expedition, World War 2, establishment of the United Nations, the Chinese Civil War and various international cold war conflicts. It is the symbol depicted across the globe during that time, and to this day in Chinese communities across the world. The flag is synonymous with the ROC in every way, yet you want to pick an obscure flag from the distant past as the primary representation. Are you trying to intentionally confuse people and obfuscate history?

5) Let' not forget for almost the entire history of Wikipedia, the correct flag and emblem was assigned to this article or related articles. It is only very recently that the wrong flag is being added as the primary. Why now?

6) It is common sense to use the most recent flag as the primary flag of the country. That is the rule for every other article about countries/flags on Wikipedia. Why should this be any different? When you click on the United States article, do you see a flag from 1776?

7) The emblem is even more ridiculous. You went out of your way to add something that at least 95% of all Chinese people cannot recognize, even if you traveled back in time to 1945. If you want to add it as a secondary emblem by all means because I don't know how, but you know perfectly well that is should not be the primary.

8) You keep talking about the Taiwan article. What does this have to do with the Taiwan article? I said the government moved to Taiwan, which is a fact. Nothing else I changed have anything to do with Taiwan. Why are you trying to mix the two, like you did with the Beiyang government article?

(Redacted)

February 2018[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Aceman626. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. And to think I was trying to help you. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, you are not trying to "help" anyone, you are the one attacking others. Why do you keep deleting my replies? Because I am right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman626 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so afraid of my posts? You understand that nobody cares about your threats right? You yourself violate Wikipedia's policies, so you're trying to silence people is that right? The more you delete, the guiltier you are.

No, it's standard operating procedure to revert off ad hominem attacks such as you made here, particularly if they are as crass as they were. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]