User talk:CPCnotCCP

Welcome!

Hello, CPCnotCCP, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:CPCnotCCP, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Equine-man (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:CPCnotCCP

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:CPCnotCCP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Equine-man (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the about me section clearly spells out my opinions and it relays my intention of putting the requests through properly channel. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the blocking admin, but I have added this template so the user can request here and not through UTRS. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dot, thank you for taking a look at this. I understand that you have closed the UTRS 2 appeal and redirected here.

I am making this both a block appeal and a request for discipline on Fastily. This is due to on two separate actions that he took, not only are the reasons that he linked to his actions are false, I find that he did so with malicious intent. For the sake of the argument, even if I was wrong, there is no logical reason to perma block a new user who finally decide to make an account based on only two history contribs. It is a poor choice to have someone like Fastily to be the first experiences that a new user may have to deal with here on Wikipedia, which I hope still adheres to its own published guidelines. Thank you for your time. CPCnotCCP (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

== Admin abuse by Fastily == Dear Wikipedia action board, My account have been blocked in what I believe to be admin abuse from Fastily. I would like to have my account unblocked and Fastily disciplined and stripped of admin rights. This is what happened: After reading Wikipedia for years and watching article after article slide out of neutral point of view, I finally decided to make an account and reach out to those people that appeared to be editing the articles biased and see if there is a more neutral common ground that can be restored on the articles. My username, CPCnotCCP, came from what I believe in to one of the most biased example in recently history, hence I used it as my username. One of the first things I did was edited my user page. I put in some statements about my beliefs, such as "the world will be in better shape if we are all talking and working together", and "I firmly believe that Wikipedia should be neutral". This user page, within hours was deleted without any conversations from Fastily. The reason that was tied in for the deletion was for "U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". Please keep in mind that I did not post any links or pictures or videos. I just wrote in plain text what I believed in, especially neutrality. I contested this deletion and left on Fastily's talk page about why did he made such deletion. A user FormalDude told me that I will need to accumulate 5 edits or more in order to have an opinion in my user page. I found that to be odd, because Wikipedia could of just have a built in feature to not allow edits on user page until such count is reached, but I accepted the answer and left the following: "Ok, thanks for letting me know. But still, to flag and delete opinions like "I believe that the world should work together" as U5, stating that it's advertisement or using Wikipedia as a webhost, with absolutely no communication to me what so ever, is twisted. CPCnotCCP (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Hours later, I found my account perma blocked. Again, without reaching out to me or even bother to have a conversation. The reason left for the perma block was "19:47, 5 November 2022 Fastily talk contribs blocked CPCnotCCP talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV)" Let us follow Fastily's reason for a second. If you look at my contrib, you will see that I have no article edits, I have 2 talks in my attempt to talk to the user in the other point of view, and the contest with my user page. That is it. To claim that I am "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV" from just two actions is actually very un-clear. While I do present a different view in the talk page than some of the users, there are certainly other people that supported it. Wikipedia is not based on assumptions, it is based on facts and evidence. But more importantly and specifically stated in Wikipedia rules, in the WP:NOTNOTHERE, it states that "Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines" and WP:NOTHERENORMS "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner, are specifically legal. I respected the rules and tried to avoid any article edit or revert wars by having expressed my point of view in the talk section. My actions are fully within the Wikipedia guidelines. At a minimum, Fastily did not fully understand the rules that the Wikipedia have set. More so, it can be said that Fastily was on a power trip and did not like the fact that I objected to his deletion of my user page, and abused his admin power and illegally blocked me. On the high side, it can be said that Fastily may not share my views on such topic and his actions are done in order to censor my opposing views. Regardless of which view you believe happened here, Fastily is unfit to be an admin as he has abused his power. The two separate actions that Fastily used his admin privilege on me were both done with ill intention. Finally, Fastily's actions completely violates WP:BITE, 1, 3, 6, and 8. He did not follow the Wikipedia's guideline of "assume good faith" and took action that permanently disabled my actions here on Wikipedia without appeal to a block. I hope you are reading this will agree with my perspectives and adhere to the Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests aren't the place to investigate admin abuse. Unblock reviewers such as myself are not empowered to strip another admin of their admin permission. If you truly believe there's been admin abuse, please contact WP:ARBCOM via email. I'll warn you, though, I see nothing that would come close to justifying stripping Fastily of their admin rights. If instead you wish to contest your block, WP:GAB explains how to do so. You'd need to drop your attempt to strip Fastily of admin rights in any such request, though, because again, unblock requests aren't the place for that. Yamla (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

== focusing on unblock only, stripped out other requests == @Yamla:@331dot: Hello, my account was blocked. The reason given was "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV)" 1. If you look at my two contribs, you will see that I have no article edits; I have started 2 talks in my attempt to talk to the users on the other point of view; and the contest with my user page. This is my first time creating an account after reading Wikipedia for years. This perma block is in contradiction with the policies posted in wp:bite 2. No matter what the thoughts or the feeling that the original blocking admin had, there is no evidence based on my contrib of two talks to warrant a perma block. 3. Most importantly, under the reason given: "Not here to build an encyclopedia", the official guideline wp:NOTNOTHERE actually have a section that states : "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not...." clause 5 "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner". So even if we assume the reason stated is true that I had a specific POV, it is fully legal within the guidelines especially as I did not even edit the said article, I respected the guidelines and sought out a dialogue in the talk section. I support more neutral articles as it is still one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I would like to have my account unblocked. Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, the use of NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO, didn't allow the blocking admin to also indicate that your username is unacceptable under that policy, another valid reason for this block, and for that reason you will have to use {{unblock-un}} to request a new username in the event you convince us to unblock you.

That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a point of view. That's effectively NOTHERE. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2022 (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.

Reponse to Daniel Case in order to avoid overuse of UNBLOCK

@Daniel Case: I am going to address your decline decision by the order it was presented. Also copying @331dot: @Yamla: since they provided instructions for me prior.

1. "the use of WP:NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO"

Response: I have already posted in my reasoning from Unblock #2, that the WP:NOTNOTHERE specifically stated that

Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed; even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.

-is allowed.

Furthermore, under "Advocating amendments to policies of guidelines of the same WP:NOTNOTHERE,

The community encompasses a very wide range of views. A user may believe a communal norm is too narrow or poorly approaches an issue, and take actions internally consistent with that viewpoint, such as advocating particular positions in discussions. Provided the user does so in an honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia, in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Wikipedia.

I do not understand how your opinion applies the WP:NOTHERE since the two above guideline specifically states what I am doing is perfectly acceptable. Do you mind explaining how do you ignore the guideline listed?

2. "your username is unacceptable under that policy, another valid reason for this block."

Response: I checked the WP:IU, WP:ATTACKNAME, there is no listed guideline in there that my username CPCnotCCP violates. There is simply no guideline that states that a username can not be a point of perspective. The guideline clearly stated in WP:BADNAME that as an administrator, you should first assume good faith. Perhaps if you read why I select the username in the first unblock request you will understand why I choose that phrase. The second thing stated that if you find my name really objective, it is procedure for you to reach out to me and let me know that there is a problem. After that, you should of request comments on my username from other users. By instantly perma block me, none of Wikipedia guidelines is followed. Your comments are not valid.

3. "That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a point of view. "

Response: This is where your statement tells me that you might be biased on this matter. Look at the evidence: I NEVER EDITED THE ARTICLE ITSELF. I only replied to the TALK page to other users' perspectives. The TALK page, the very place where a user is suppose to be to have a discussion. I replied to TWO (2) user's comments. That is all I was able to do after the account was created, and within 20 hours of the account creation, my account was perma blocked. I did not get a chance to do anything else. How about you follow the Wikipedia's guideline of WP:GF assume good faith, and actually observe my actions for a while before you make up your mind? Two (2) initial actions were enough of a sample size to justify a perma block an account? That is the equivalent of a baby of 20 month old stepped on an ant and the baby will put to prison for life assuming that the baby will be a serial killer in the future. No neutral common sense will find two (2) sample size to enough to justify a permanent action, especially after I follow the guidelines and did NOT edit the article and only spoke in the TALK section.

Conclusion If you read my initial explaining in Unlock #1, I spoke about being neutral being the key, why I finally created an account, and why I want to have a discussion due to my perspective that some articles on Wikipedia is anything but neutral. Shall what I have encountered within 24 hour of my account creation be a precedent, I highly doubt that is the type of actions the creators of Wikipedia have intended. It is on the level of drawing dotted line linking far fetched reasoning against all published Wikipedia guidelines in order to silent and squash a perspective not shared by the people with privileges. I do not know if you will respond of any other admin will shine in their view point. But I am trying to talk it out with everyone before I request an arbitration hearing. Thank you and please comment, whatever your position may be.

CPCnotCCP (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LAWYER. 331dot explains it in enough detail below so that I don't have to. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "perma blocked", which would suggest there is no way back. You are blocked until you can convince an adminstrator you will not repeat the reason for the block. Big difference. You had not made a single edit to an article. You haven't offered sources to support the change you advocate, you only seem to say that one policy should override another policy. I think your analogy is grossly exaggerated.

Your username indeed violates policy, WP:USERNAME; "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, and either cause disruption to productive Wikipedia processes or discussions, or make harmonious editing difficult or impossible to achieve; e.g. by containing profanities, or referencing highly-contentious events or controversies". By your own suggestion this is a contentious area you edited in. It would be no different if your username was DonaldTrumpforPresident2024 or JoeBidenforPresident2024 or TexasShouldSecede. Politics should stay out of usernames. If this was a formal unblock request, I would decline it. You can make a formal unblock request for someone else to look at, but you seem to be saying you will contact the Arbitration Committee. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments @331dot:.

I have the following to say:

1. in regarding to your first paragraph, yes there is only so many things I can do before I was blocked in 20 hours and didn't really get a chance to do anything else. Please understand I am trying to learn how to properly source stuff. In those 2 talk section replies, I was just responding to the users. I stated that I plan to follow the guidelines that before any contested article edits, I will propose the edited text in talk session. That is my statement from even the original UTR2. I never intend on breaking the rules.

2. Thanks for reaching out to me about the username. And thank you for following the guideline. To me it's hardly offensive but I will take your position on it and request a username change, something like GreenRectangleLeaf, after I get unblocked.

CPCnotCCP (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his decline message, Daniel Case gave you the unblock request template to use to make a request that simultaneously proposes a new username. If you propose one, we can change it. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot@Daniel Case

Thanks for getting back to me 331dot. Few things:

1. Right now there is an "indefinite block" on my account. I read the dispute process and it looks like there isn't any where for me to go except for arbitration. I do not want to abuse the Unblock process either hence why I am talking to you here. To change the name or not, Daniel Case stated that I need to get unblocked first. So I am here to reach an consensus of what needs to be done before I attempt to do what you said. If the process is not to arbitration, please let me know what to do next.

2. You confirmed that I made no article edits, and I only replied to a couple of comments in the Talk section. My position on that matter might be a minority voice, but my actions, except for the username that I now know, violates no Wikipedia policy. To summarize everything down to a very simple term: Does two un-sourced replies in favor of a minority opinion on a contested Talk page done by a new user warrant a indefinite block? The answer is very clear.

3. By sticking to Wikipedia's policy and not circumvent the block, you can see that I am serious about following the guidelines. I just do not believe my actions justifies the block. Someone could of easily reach out to me and let me know about the issue at hand, as per guideline. You will see that I am actually a very reasonable person and if given more than 20 hours on Wikipedia, I will have other contributions. How about actually give me some time before you make your mind up on my intentions? BTW, I think it's ironic how Daniel Case bought up WP:Wikilawyering, as it contained the following

Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. It may refer to: Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions. Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.

CPCnotCCP (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward is for you to make another unblock request for someone else to review. If you eventually lose access to this page(hypothetically), the next step would be WP:UTRS; if that fails only then would you go to the Arbitration Committee. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, via the extensive discussion with Admins in my Talk page, I am requesting for a username change. I am also requesting for a unblock. It has been reviewed and confirmed that I made no article edit since my account was created and then blocked within 20 hours. Only 2 replies in the Talk page were made during that short span, and an admin did not assume good faith and made the premature decision to block me. To summarize everything down to a very simple term: Does two un-sourced replies in favor of a minority opinion on a contested Talk page done by a new user warrant a indefinite block? I am and have been respecting Wikipedia's policies and not attempting to circumvent the block, instead taking the tedious time to appeal it. I believe that given more time on Wikipedia you will see that I am here to make helpful contributions. Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 30 December 2022 (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.

Rarely have I seen someone so entitled and unaware of their own biased opinions as this user! And their aim was to show the rest of us how to be neutral! This really is so so funny. Long may the (deserved) ban continue86.137.20.87 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC

Hello @331dot: @Yamla: May I get an update of the status of the unblock and name change request? I has been over a month. Thanks. CPCnotCCP (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Hello, I am not understanding the response that you left. Since the information that you left is within an OR statement, I am only going to focus on the first one:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or

As I have repeatly stated above, what damage or disruption have I caused Wikipedia? It is black and white that I did not edit the article itself. I expressed a dissident opinion although not rare by far, in the TALK page, by definition is a forum to air out these disagreements, and by rules of Wikipedia WP:NOTHERENORMS specifically allowed to express. I have agreed to change my username which an admin pointed out, so why exactly am I still being declined an unblock? CPCnotCCP (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Daniel Case's decline, you need to use {{unblock-un}} to request the unblock because your username does not comply with policy. Further, you're going to need to describe what edits you intend to make, which should demonstrate that you are in fact here to build an encyclopedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:

Hello Rosguill thanks for getting back to me. When I applied for the unblock that you declined, I did use the unblock-un template as specified by DanielCase. It even asked me what the new username that I want, which I specified SquareLeaf since that was available at the time.

As to answer your inquiry about what edits I intend to make, well nothing directly. The one thing I tried to explain above but no one seems to pick up on is this:

I could just changed my IP and start anew, but I did not. I instead choose to follow Wikipedia's rules and go through this so far very long appeal process and get myself unblocked.

I could of just start an account, get the number of edits required so I will be allowed to edit semi protected articles. But I did not, instead I choose to express my dissenting views in the talk page so a discussion could be had.

When my unblock requests did not succeed, I did not use any foul language and instead asked the few admins that is willing to help me out here what should I do next.

I truly believe I did nothing wrong to warranty this block. Yes you can expect dissenting views from me, and I understand they might not be popular. However, the one other thing you can also expect from me is that I will always play by the rules and go through the channels and accept the outcome, instead of starting reverting wars. CPCnotCCP (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your username could be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy in that it implies intent to polemicize about a specific community guideline rather than to build the encyclopedia. You can make a further unblock request for consideration by another admin at any time. I would recommend that your request focus on what editing work you intend to do on Wikipedia other than advocating for the use of CPC, as this is what will convince the reviewing admin that you're here to contribute in good faith. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks at Talk:Chinese Communist Party

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about your Personal attacks at Talk:Chinese Communist Party. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nutez, I looked at the noticeboard and this does not apply to me.

I am taking a few months off from Wikipedia as one of the admin suggested. When I return I will reply to the ongoing comments.

Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why this account is blocked, record of incident from my perspective

1. What happened. I reference Wikipedia on subjects that I need understanding quickly. Throughout the years, there are few articles that I disagree with, but none of them compelled me enough to actually make a Wikipedia account and try to state my different perspective. That is until I saw this article on Communist Party of China, which in my opinion is clearly biased and goes against the WP:NPOV. So I made this account, and I made the following two dissenting additions in the Community Party of China's talk page.

The first comment that I posted in the Talk section is:

Using CCP have nothing to do with the common name clause. It is the principle of Wikipedia to be neutral. CCP is not a neutral term. CCP is a term used by biased medium to invoke soviet era red scare CCCP and the usage of CCP is almost always associated in negative coverage. In addition to not being neutral, there is also colonialism undertone behind the term CCP, just as western society try to mimic Chinese pronunciation such as Peking or Nanking back in that period. To this date this is still being used to highlight the difference in the type of government of the local people. This should be changed back to the official name and reflect a more neutral tone. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

the second comment that I posted in the Talk section was:

:::::this is an absolutely false statement. If you do a search on all the article that contains the term CCP it is mostly in negative coverage. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the comments, I attempted to set up my own user page stating that I would prefer a more neutral Wikipedia, and that the world will be a better place if we are all working and talking to each other.

2. The Indefinite Block.

Within 20 hours of my account creation, at 08:56, 5 November 2022 Fastily deleted my user page User:CPCnotCCP with the comments of (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=138854638 The "Speedy deletion nomination of User:CPCnotCCP" section is also preserved on this very talk page.

I posted on Fastily's talk page asking the admin why my userpage deleted. He did not reply. Someone else replied to me and let me know that new users need 5 edits before being allowed to have a userpage. I said I did not know that and logged off. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Fastily/Archive_7#You_deleted_my_user:_page_claiming_it_was_under_U5

Moments later, my account was indefinitely blocked by Fastily. 19:47, 5 November 2022 Fastily blocked CPCnotCCP with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV) https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=138862923

From the time I created the account to the time my account being blocked, it was active for less than 20 hours.

3. Fastily's charge #1 for deletion of my userpage as "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host".

My Response The deletion of my userpage was unfounded. I was most definitely not using Wikipedia as a webhost to promote my self. There was no links to exterior sites nor am I a business.

4. Fastily's reason for my Indefinite Block: "not here to build an encyclopedia".

My Response Under WP:NOTNOTHERE Focusing on niche topic areas is specifically allowed in the first paragraph, even if my action is purely as Fastily described "SPA pushing a very specific POV", which I was not. I created the account for less than 20 hours before it was blocked, I did not have time to do anything else. The two comments in a talk page that I posted just happened to be the first things I did on Wikipedia, they are not representative of my future actions or intentions in time.

I need to emphasize that I did not just went ahead and edit the article. I was trying to express a dissenting point of view in the Talk page, which is exactly what it is purposed for, and how differences should be discussed openly and settled according to WP:NOTHERENORMS. As you can see from section one, the comments I posted are respectful and civil. I just happen to disagree.

5. My username is offensive.

My Response A couple of admin pointed out that my username is considered offensive, and that leads to a block. I acknowledged that I did not know we could not put a point of view into a username. I mentioned that instead of a block, an admin could of just reach out and let me know about this according to WP:BADNAME policy and I would of changed it. I do have plan to change my user SquareLeaf if I am unblocked. If that username is taken at that time, SquareLeaf1 or SquareLeaf2 would work also, unless someone out there finds a SquareLeaf to be offensive.

6. Time off I followed one of the admin's advice and took more than 6 months off from this matter. You can see that I am respecting the block and did not attempt to circumvent the block. May the admins consider that my actions so far could possibly be an indicator otherwise? I hope the Wikipedia community can see what I actually will do, instead of rushing to a judgement based on assumption, especially in a talk page that is designed for users to express their opinion. I hope Wikipedia will stay true to the WP:5P and allow this place to be a neutral and educational central for information. While we do not have to agree with one another, opinions from all positions should be able to expressed freely and heard, as long as the conversation stays civil. At least that is my understanding of the Wikipedia community. Thank you CPCnotCCP (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock and username change request 3

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

SquareLeaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Request for username change and unblock as suggested per admin Rosguill from the previous unblock request. I am attempting to remedy the block by first changing my username to something neutral. For account of what happened please see the section titled "Why this account is blocked, record of incident from my perspective" in my talk page. I think by reading that section the Wikipedia community will know for sure that I will not just edit any article without posting the proposed changes in the talk page first. I never did any damages to any Wikipedia article. After the username gets changed, I believe there will be no more need for the block. As for what I plan on contributing to the future, anything I understand or have an opinion really. The first thing that comes to mind is actually the article "Wireless device radiation and health". CPCnotCCP (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding. I had thought that some of what you said was intended to indicate that you would not continue with the kind of editing which led to the block, but now you have made it totally clear that that is not so, and obviously there can be no question of removing the block if you don't intend to avoid doing the things which led to the block. I also don't know how you got the impression that the only reason for the block was your username, but since that indicates that you don't understand the reasons for the block, you would not be able to avoid continuing the kind of editing which led to the block anyway, even if you changed your mind and decided to try to do so. (Although it is not part of the reason for declining your unblock request, I also advise you not to lecture native speakers of English on how to use their own language. You said that Organization is not spelled as "organisation"; well, actually it is, except in the United States of America.) JBW (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW, Since you went so far about how I don't understand, and you did not do so, please take a look at my Special:Contributions/CPCnotCCP and explain in detail for the record how / what exactly did my actions violate the Wikipedia rules, and an ongoing block is needed to prevent continuing damage to Wikipedia. Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW I never heard back from you. Do you care to comment at this point? Do you care actually citing Wikipedia rules and explain which policies I have violated? CPCnotCCP (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally well disposed to consider unblock requests from blocked editors who say that they will not continue with the kind of editing which led to the block. However, I have doubts about the competence to contribute to an English language encyclopaedia of someone who is so out of touch with what the English language means to speakers of English as to really hold the absurd view that writing "Chinese Communist Party" rather than "Communist Party of China" is some kind of evil biased form of words used with the intention of viciously discrediting that organisation. I don't see anything in what you have written that gives me any confidence that you won't continue to plug ideas of that kind. JBW (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major issue to some people. I guess similar to Democrat Party (epithet) in the United States, which is a way to troll members of the Democratic Party. Minor variations in words or phrases can align you with the wrong group. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JBW, I see that you are an administrator of Wikipedia, so to a certain level, you or your actions represent Wikipedia.

I am going to respond to your comment in the order it's written.

1. Please do not make up actions or statements that I did not write. I never said anything about

quote: "not continue with the kind of editing which led to the block."

If you actually read the section Why this account is blocked above, you will see that I did not violate any Wikipedia rules except for my username. Also, I must emphasize yet again that I never edited any article. I civilly discussed an unpopular perspective in the talk section, and that is specially allowed under WP:NOTNOTHERE. The block, as explained by previous admins was caused by my username. And now I am requesting a change of username to cure that problem. However, if you as an admin, are now telling me that the block was the result from my "editing" in a talk page, then the block itself violates WP:BLOCKP. Stick to the WP:NOOB and the WP:GF, give some time and you will see that while our perspectives may disagree, I always have and will act civilly and respect the rules of Wikipedia, and not isolated to just this subject.

2. quote: "competence to contribute to English language encyclopedia."

Let me be the first to say that my grammar is not pristine. However, this entire talk page, is written in the English language. If you or anyone else has any fundamental doubts on about my ability to communicate a perspective, please do comment why.

3. quote: "someone who is so out of touch holding the absurd view about Chinese Communist Party

Without getting personal, your statement directly contradicts WP:EPOV. I highly recommend you review that policy. Again, in WP:NOTNOTHERE, it specifically states that "expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner" is allowed. Just because my perspective is different from yours on a single subject, it doesn't mean I have no place on Wikipedia to express it, or am completely barred from contributing to other topics, especially in the civil way that I did.

4. Organization, is not spelled as "organisation".

5. quote: "gives me any confidence that you won't continue to plug ideas of that kind.

This is the part of your comment that really gets troubling. WP:NOPUNISH and WP:BLOCKP clearly state that

Blocks should not be used: to retaliate; to disparage; to punish; or if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

You have your perspective on the topic of the Communist Party of China and I can respect that. However, it is absolutely dangerous to think that a simple discussion of this topic backed by research, but does not fit your view, shouldn't be allowed; or that the people who share those opposing perspectives aren't capable or "competent" enough to contribute to a community on this or any other subjects on Wikipedia. The English language has a word for that: censorship, to say the very least. Also, in quote "English language means to speakers of English" community, you will find overwhelming support for the position of free discussion, as long as it is done civilly and without threats, like I have. If you, as an administrator of Wikipedia, are censoring accounts based on whether their edits conforms to your perspective or not, in other words, attempting to silence opposing perspectives, and other admins agree with you, then Wikipedia isn't what I think it stands for, and I want no part of it.

6. To sum it all up, the only rule here I have broken is my username, for which I should have received a warning and request for change, but I got a block instead. I have put in an attempt to cure with unblock-un already. Once that is changed, there is no longer a need for a block, according to the written policies of Wikipedia found in WP:BLOCKP. If you, as an admin, cannot be impartial on this matter due to our different perspectives, then you should abstain.

CPCnotCCP (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]