User talk:Wikidugaren

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. You may also be interested in reading The five pillars of Wikipedia, our Help pages, the Tutorial, the policy on citing sources, and our Manual of Style.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ([[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

-- ran (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning over Inner Mongolia

Hi. Please be careful over excessive reverts, which can get you blocked. Please read WP:3RR carefully; you might want to look at WP:1RR and WP:NPOV too. Regards, William M. Connolley 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what is better ways to stop the other guys from keep deleting (and of course reverting too) every change I made and to keep their own.

Make some common sense before warning me, OK?

dugar 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Mark ^{your words} 17:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "personal attack"? Why don't site what my "personal attack" is? dugar 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Racist' and 'arrogant'. Mark ^{your words} 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is nonsense. What about the people who're acting out of racism and arrogance? Why don't you block them? What about them never letting me do any edits?

dugar 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24 hours for your continued persional atacks on Talk:Inner Mongolia. Please contribute civilly on your return. Thanks, Mark ^{your words} 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I'll respond here to the remarks Mark reverted. You're right: I didn't pour through the other fellow's remarks in their entirety. My point isn't in whether or not he's right. It's that his history lesson isn't pertinent. What we're seeing is a longwinded history lesson as to why this territory should be called "Southern Mongolia" in English, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public debating forum, not a site for neologisms, not a public advocacy forum, we have no business here declaring long-standing usages invalid or inaccurate. Convince the rest of the world to call it "Southern Mongolia" first -- and try to do it with fewer obscenities this time -- and it'll be legitimate to change things here. Not before. RGTraynor 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you know you're really messed up. dugar 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"American mouths are way too faster than American brain"? You've already been blocked before for personal attacks but I don't think you've quite gotten the point yet. Please take a closer look at our policies. -- ran (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing that while you ignore my invitation for discussion in more than one place, you're so quick to block me and fan the fires of other. I don't think you're in good faith to do anything but to spread your Chinese chauvinistic fantasy. dugar 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that POV-pushing, false accusations, personal attacks, and bigoted comments such as "American mouths are way too faster than American brain" are not constructive "invitations for discussion" in Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Why would you ignore my invitations posted, even one right on your talk page, long before all these negative developments? Yes, I admit that I wasn't always acting polite and perfect. I'm not very familiar with all precedures, policies and editing techniques of wikipedia and I still am not. But that said, why would you, as an admin, have to wait till the dispute being escalated to the current degree? Have you been just waiting for me to prompted again and again till I act in the degree for which you blocked me and just in order to be able to block me? Isn't all you have done so far, is just keep reverting whatever changes I made? Have you read my comments on your user page and my "initial thoughts" and the willingness expressed about working together to modify the disputed article? Have you responded to them? Why not? Why were you then so quick and so enthusiastic about just blocking me? Isn't that an abuse of your admin power? I would still be willing to discuss disputes and work together to improve the article and contribute in more future articles. But you have to act reasonable too. dugar 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:Enkhbatt are the ones solely responsible for these "negative developments". No one else engaged in the sort of name-calling, personal attacks, and overt bigotry that you did - just the two of you. Please do not blame others for what you did.

During the upcoming week you might like to look at the Tibet article and see exactly the kind of careful cooperation and negotiation that got it to the state it is today. -- ran (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you shy away from answering directly my questions asked in the previous one? That was me who brough up the Tibet article example and expressed to work with you to improve Mongolia article. How did you respond? Yes, Tibet artilce is good (I said this before you did). Why don't you learn something from it then? Answer my questions! dugar 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't I learn something from it? Among others, User:Khoikhoi, User:Markalexander100, and I were the ones responsible for the situation of the Tibet article today. Yes, we, the ones who built up the Tibet article, are the same people that you decided to offend with your 不分青红皂白的谩骂 (indiscriminate insults) on Talk:Inner Mongolia. And you're telling us to learn something from it? Why don't you go through the history and talk page of Tibet to see how we discussed and negotiated the content of that article, and learn something from our painstaking effort? -- ran (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, why are you reluctant to do the same with Mongolia article? You haven't done asnwering my questions yet. Answer the others! dugar 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With you insulting people indiscriminately, making false accusations and bigoted comments, why should anyone answer your questions? Do you think you're being very heroic, insulting around like this? Let me tell you this: Wikipedia has been blocked by the Chinese communist government, yet there are many Mainland Chinese contributors over at Chinese Wikipedia who continue to contribute to Wikipedia: those are the real fighters of freedom of speech! As far as fenqing like you are concerned, it doesn't matter if you support the independence of Inner Mongolia or the annexation of Outer Mongolia, as long as you keep your current attitude, this will be the reception that you get!

All in all, one week is long enough. Don't be so radical all the time, and don't bring into Wikipedia the sort of nastiness that is endemic to extremist BBS's on the Internet. As long as you can participately sanely and calmly in discussions, everyone here will protect your freedom of speech. And that's my last word on this. -- ran (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to work with you to improve the articles in dispute. dugar 00:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]