User talk:ZeehanLin

Please be nice and patient with this New Wikipedian.

This user thinks he is a newbie. If he has done something wrong, please give him careful advice and don't use harsh words to accuse him.

This user is a newbie and has a fear of being hurt by the big guys.

Policies
and
Guidelines
-1

This editor is new to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He may make mistakes from time to time and needs help from others.

Welcome!

Hi ZeehanLin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Certes (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked, conditions

Per this, you have been unblocked with the following condition: You are indefinitely topic banned from Taiwan. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the topic block would be limited to the country (or what kind of entity ZeehanLin would consider it to be) of Taiwan itself. Editing a film made in Taiwan, or a train station in Taiwan, or a Taiwanese person isn't a ban violation in 0xDeadbeef's view, who blocked ZeehanLin. The technicalities on whether Mainland China is in the Taiwan topic haven't been clarified. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ka le (gaming slang)

The article Ka le (gaming slang) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, also per WP:NOTDICT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lordseriouspig 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please read WP:TBAN: (emphasis added) a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.

You're not allowed to talk about anything relating to Taiwan, anywhere on this site. The recent reference desk thread you opened is a clear violation. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited Cross-strait relations, and even though you appropriately fixed a typo, this clearly violates the topic ban. Please avoid the topic. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to violate topic ban after warning.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

(C)hanges that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand.
— WP:BRV

This policy shows helpful changes shoule be allowed, even if they were made by banned editors.

Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.
— WP:BANEX

It may be not a vandalisim but I don't think this spelling error would be kept as no reasonable person could disagree this obvious error.
By the way, I don't think my behaviours including ones I did before the topic ban are harmful enough to get an indefinitely block and topic ban.

Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often result in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.
— WP:BMB

(I)ncidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days. ... (A)ccounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;
— WP:BLOCKDURATION

Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.
— WP:INDEF

I didn't even get a "primary resort" before and how did it suddenly become a "last resort"? Does that mean my account is used exclusively for disruption?
Your accusations contain a lot of conjecture, which you have no intention of verifying.
# "you have been repeating this behavior for half a year", there was a long period of time when I didn't edit because I didn't find any new points.
#Taiwan and its associated talk pages actually only talk pages, only one was the ambiguation page.
#Your editing is exclusively about Taiwan, so a sitewide block is valid as you've not edited about any other topics.See more other editings in global account.
And what you are doing is always theatening, theatening and theatening. Whenever I want to communicate, and you always said "block your talk page permission". Is that a right attitude of a administrator? I don't want OXdaadbbbef (as you don't think a spelling error as an error) to review this block anymore. ZeehanLin (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<blockquote class="templatequote " >(C)hanges that are obviously helpful, such as '''fixing typos''' or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand.<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BRV]]</cite></div></blockquote>This policy shows helpful changes shoule be allowed, even if they were made by banned editors. <blockquote class="templatequote " >Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BANEX]]</cite></div></blockquote>It may be not a vandalisim but I don't think this spelling error would be kept as <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">no reasonable person could disagree</q> this obvious error.

<br>By the way, I don't think my behaviours including ones I did before the topic ban are harmful enough to get an indefinitely block and topic ban.<blockquote class="templatequote " >Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a '''last resort''', usually for '''extreme or very persistent''' problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often result in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. <div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BMB]]</cite></div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote " >(I)ncidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days. ... (A)ccounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BLOCKDURATION]]</cite></div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote " >Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. <div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:INDEF]]</cite></div></blockquote> I didn't even get a "primary resort" before and how did it suddenly become a "<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">last resort</q>"? Does that mean my account is <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">used exclusively for disruption</q>?  <br>Your accusations contain a lot of conjecture, which you have no intention of verifying. <br># "<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">you have been repeating this behavior for half a year</q>", there was a long period of time when I didn't edit because I didn't find any new points. <br>#<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Taiwan and its associated talk pages</q> actually only talk pages, only one was the ambiguation page. <br>#<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Your editing is exclusively about Taiwan, so a sitewide block is valid as you've not edited about any other topics.</q>See more other editings in global account.<br>And what you are doing is always theatening, theatening and theatening. Whenever I want to communicate, and you always said "block your talk page permission". Is that a right attitude of a administrator? 

I don't want [[User:0xDeadbeef|OXdaadbbbef (as you don't think a spelling error as an error)]] to review this block anymore. [[User:ZeehanLin|ZeehanLin]] ([[User talk:ZeehanLin#top|talk]]) 11:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<blockquote class="templatequote " >(C)hanges that are obviously helpful, such as '''fixing typos''' or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand.<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BRV]]</cite></div></blockquote>This policy shows helpful changes shoule be allowed, even if they were made by banned editors. <blockquote class="templatequote " >Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BANEX]]</cite></div></blockquote>It may be not a vandalisim but I don't think this spelling error would be kept as <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">no reasonable person could disagree</q> this obvious error.

<br>By the way, I don't think my behaviours including ones I did before the topic ban are harmful enough to get an indefinitely block and topic ban.<blockquote class="templatequote " >Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a '''last resort''', usually for '''extreme or very persistent''' problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often result in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. <div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BMB]]</cite></div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote " >(I)ncidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days. ... (A)ccounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BLOCKDURATION]]</cite></div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote " >Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. <div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:INDEF]]</cite></div></blockquote> I didn't even get a "primary resort" before and how did it suddenly become a "<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">last resort</q>"? Does that mean my account is <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">used exclusively for disruption</q>?  <br>Your accusations contain a lot of conjecture, which you have no intention of verifying. <br># "<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">you have been repeating this behavior for half a year</q>", there was a long period of time when I didn't edit because I didn't find any new points. <br>#<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Taiwan and its associated talk pages</q> actually only talk pages, only one was the ambiguation page. <br>#<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Your editing is exclusively about Taiwan, so a sitewide block is valid as you've not edited about any other topics.</q>See more other editings in global account.<br>And what you are doing is always theatening, theatening and theatening. Whenever I want to communicate, and you always said "block your talk page permission". Is that a right attitude of a administrator? 

I don't want [[User:0xDeadbeef|OXdaadbbbef (as you don't think a spelling error as an error)]] to review this block anymore. [[User:ZeehanLin|ZeehanLin]] ([[User talk:ZeehanLin#top|talk]]) 11:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<blockquote class="templatequote " >(C)hanges that are obviously helpful, such as '''fixing typos''' or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand.<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BRV]]</cite></div></blockquote>This policy shows helpful changes shoule be allowed, even if they were made by banned editors. <blockquote class="templatequote " >Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BANEX]]</cite></div></blockquote>It may be not a vandalisim but I don't think this spelling error would be kept as <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">no reasonable person could disagree</q> this obvious error.

<br>By the way, I don't think my behaviours including ones I did before the topic ban are harmful enough to get an indefinitely block and topic ban.<blockquote class="templatequote " >Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a '''last resort''', usually for '''extreme or very persistent''' problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often result in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. <div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BMB]]</cite></div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote " >(I)ncidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days. ... (A)ccounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:BLOCKDURATION]]</cite></div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote " >Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. <div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>[[WP:INDEF]]</cite></div></blockquote> I didn't even get a "primary resort" before and how did it suddenly become a "<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">last resort</q>"? Does that mean my account is <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">used exclusively for disruption</q>?  <br>Your accusations contain a lot of conjecture, which you have no intention of verifying. <br># "<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">you have been repeating this behavior for half a year</q>", there was a long period of time when I didn't edit because I didn't find any new points. <br>#<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Taiwan and its associated talk pages</q> actually only talk pages, only one was the ambiguation page. <br>#<q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Your editing is exclusively about Taiwan, so a sitewide block is valid as you've not edited about any other topics.</q>See more other editings in global account.<br>And what you are doing is always theatening, theatening and theatening. Whenever I want to communicate, and you always said "block your talk page permission". Is that a right attitude of a administrator? 

I don't want [[User:0xDeadbeef|OXdaadbbbef (as you don't think a spelling error as an error)]] to review this block anymore. [[User:ZeehanLin|ZeehanLin]] ([[User talk:ZeehanLin#top|talk]]) 11:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note that by default blocking administrators cannot review block appeals unless they are unblocking. As for the rest, I don't have enough energy to comment on because I'm tired of all the directed accusations of me being threatening, lying, and etc. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're tired, ain't I? Because of this, I lost my own right of editing. And you say you're tired???? How can you say that out?ZeehanLin (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any need to show what you have said? Accusations, joke. ZeehanLin (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to respond here. Your edit on Cross-strait relations is allowed to stand because it was fixing a typo, as you correctly point out. However, it is clear that you repeatedly breached the topic ban that you previously agreed to. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]