User talk:ZeehanLin/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi ZeehanLin! I noticed your contributions to Republic of China 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)

Kind reminders before the block

You should be careful on editing Taiwan topics

You are brand new here and the only articles you have edited are Taiwan-related articles. You have been reverted on Taiwan (disambiguation) twice, and on Republic of China once. Your first post here was opening a discussion at Talk:Taiwan which was closed with "no new arguments" and "talking in circles." Now you open another topic at Talk:Taiwan which goes into the same thing. Perhaps you are unaware on how to read all the archives. Perhaps you don't understand Wikipedia protocols or how consensus works. I'm not sure. There are good editors and administrators who can help you with that.

What I am sure of is that continuing the same arguments on the same single topic does not bode well for your editing privileges down the line. I suggest stepping away from this single topic and finding other articles that bring you joy and editing fun. This can be a great place if you work well with others as a team, and move along when consensus is against you. But obversely, persistent beating a topic over and over can lead to blocks and bad feelings for all. I'd move along for what it's worth. Cheers and happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thx ZeehanLin (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring the existing RfC consensus and reliable sources cited by other editors. You are free to move on to other topics if you aren't able to understand or productively comment on this specific topic. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have something to say in the Statement on some of the discussions I have made. ZeehanLin (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

But there is another big problem that you may not realize. You opened a topic... fine. You want a change... fine. And you stated as such... fine. What is not fine is continually adding more to others "oppose" statement. That should really not be done unless they address you personally. Everyone gets their say and there is no need to comment on each one. We know your stance. Administration frowns on that a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• And again you should be very careful on these one-track edits. I warned you about things back in February that all you are doing is editing Taiwan related articles and getting reverted. Then going to Taiwan related talk pages and running discussions into circles. You disappear for five months and reappear suddenly July 26 and what are you editing... Talk:Taiwan, Mainland China (and getting reverted), and creating Draft:Taiwan which has no chance of being implemented. I say once again, this one track approach does not always bode well. We just had an editor blocked indefinitely who was fixated on these topics but they also wouldn't respond to talk page requests (which hasn't occurred here). I'm not saying it has reached that level, but I don't want to see that happen here. So be careful in your approach, don't keep saying the same things and expect a different response, and branch out and find some other topics you'd like to improve. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your warning.

  In WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS:

  Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.

  If the opinions raised are not questioned, then it can be considered a consensus. Therefore, I need to reply to them to express that their opinions are questioned and even partially unreasonable.

  ...creating Draft:Taiwan which has no chance of being implemented...

  Many of you have already preconceived that my changes are wrong and ultimately unworkable. Many of you are not seeking the truth, but are trying to exclude "intrusions" from people like me, whether reasonable or unreasonable. I have always taken this matter seriously, and I have looked for sources to maintain neutrality as much as possible, but you think this is a kind of "sabotage".

  I am very sorry to see such a Wikipedia. ZeehanLin (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I see a couple problems here. A discussion is started by a now blocked user on July 14. You come in on July 26 with no one really agreeing with you. On July 29 you start an RfC on changing the first sentence. Everyone has opposed it and you have injected yourself into most of those opposes. You don't need to do that as it often turns the survey into a stewy mess for a closer. If you want to make addition comments start a discussion below the survey. The RFC should really only have been started "if" you could see real arguments on both sides of the issue by multiple editors. This was premature and could turn into a snowball speedy close. I think you can ask for closure yourself seeing how no one agrees. Also on the July 29 you start a draft page with the line "limited recognition" which has zero chance of being implemented based on the two discussion on Talk:Taiwan. Sort of putting the cart before the horse by creating the draft. When I saw you created a draft is when I interjected here by noticing some similarities with your posts back in February.

  Back in February you came in with a similar thing claiming that Republic of China does not equal Taiwan, and Taiwan is not a country. You said there was a problem but you were the one creating a problem at that time. You tried to use a blog as a source and it was shot down instantly. You claimed some taunting then too. I see similarities this time I was worried you were going to dig your heals in so deep on this that you could not get out of the hole.

  You say you are "very sorry to see such a Wikipedia." No one is forcing you to stay and edit. The trouble is you are selling something that no one wants to buy. The limited recognition denomination is not very important and everyone knows that. I doubt it would be limited if China wasn't forcing countries to abandon recognition or lose all trade and monetary gains. Countries weigh food on the table, and infrastructure more than Taiwan recognition. Same with having China in the UN... it's better they are in the UN but it's one or the other.

  And the "country" term was a hard fought consensus. I had personally preferred we keep it as "state" and others wanted "sovereign state", but country was deemed more common and was generally a term that covered all bases. I have to agree it has worked well for quite a long time, and nothing has changed in trying to overturn that solid lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would also read WP:IMPLIED, implied consensus is the weakest form of consensus... The quotes you pulled don't seem to mean what you think they mean. They don't seem to adress the WP:bludgeoning on talk pages which was brought up. I agree with Fyunck(click) that your draft has no real chance of being implimented, thats not an attack its just the truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Little is different from no. ZeehanLin (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  IMO little would be a lie, it has no real chance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's your opinions ZeehanLin (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes thats true, its a hypothetical situation so no certaintly can actually be offered. But what about this opinion is a policy and guideline violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind reminder of guideline

I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum where you can air your particular point of view with little concern for existing consensus or receptivity to other viewpoints. In Talk:Taiwan, you have repeatedly brought up old talking points without bringing new arguments, bordering on bludgeoning the process at several points.

I strongly suggest that you listen to other editors and not respond with large blocks of text just to try to drown out any discussion. As noted in the guideline, do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". If you are so focused on the singular topics of Taiwan and Mainland China, please make sure you are making the discussion process constructive for all editors. Happy Editing! Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I also feel like you need to read wp:Bludgeon We already know what you think, we are telling you we disagree. There is no need to reply to every comment with the same points. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to provide additional context, comments like “I will defend to my death…” is not conducive to a constructive editing environment. This kind of language suggests an inflexibility to interact with opposing viewpoints and risks turning off other editors. It is a bit odd to say something like that in a discussion, so I would suggest refraining from that to keep things civil. Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Elaboration of the block

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

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) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I also want to say that you have a misunderstanding about the sentence "you have been repeating this behavior for half a year", there was a period of time when I didn't edit because I didn't find any new points. ZeehanLin (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I originally meant to place a warning here but I saw that you have been exclusively editing Taiwan and its associated talk pages. You've been warned since February to be careful on editing Taiwan topics. You've been told a lot of times to not bring up the topic on the talk page again unless there had been an argument substantial to bring up since the last RfC. But you continued to WP:BLUDGEON the process. From every talk page section you have opened I can see people having to relitigate policy, the previous consensus, and why your proposal contradicts previous consensus. This is WP:IDHT. And you've repeated this behavior for about half a year.

I do think your disruption is exclusive to Taiwan-related topics, so I'd consider an unblock if you voluntarily agree to be topic-banned from Taiwan-related topics, broadly construed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually Taiwan and its associated talk pages only talk pages, not entry itself. ZeehanLin (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: I realized that the word "country" could also refer to polities with some degree of autonomy and cultural identity but still under the sovereignty of another state according to Wiktionary (wiktionary:country#Usage notes). Perhaps due to domestic public opinion in China, many Chinese people do not realize this. Given that Taiwan is in the Sinophone World, I would like to ask if a footnote can be added to explain the situation described in green font. In this way, I think everything can be explained. Then I can also promise not to comment on or modify the consensus on whether Taiwan is a country.

Chinese people have strong national sentiments, so my behavior may be extreme. I have no ill intentions. I apologize to you all, especially @Fyunck(click), @Remsense, @Butterdiplomat. ZeehanLin (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point I would prefer keeping you blocked, which also promises you won't cause more disruption. This is also a warning that if you use this talk page for anything other than appealing your block again I would have to block you from your talk page also. (please no more of "if only you'd do X on the article I would promise not to disrupt anymore") 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef:Please tell me what should I do now. ZeehanLin (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you want to do? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

While complying with Wikipedia policies and regulations, try to meet the needs of both parties as much as possible.ZeehanLin (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What parties? What needs? Are you suggesting that your edits were political motivated? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe my English is not good enough, I meant "my side" and "your side". I hope your belief that my edits were politically motivated is just a simple misunderstanding of language, not malicious speculation.ZeehanLin (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's because my English is not so clear. I tried to compromise and make suggestions, but you were harsh and threatened to block my talk page privileges.

I'm a beginner and I'm sorry to trouble you. But I think most of the mistakes are on the talk page, not the entry itself. The only action to the entry itself was undone and then only on the talk page. I still think the whole site and indefinite block is a bit excessive.

I want to know what I should do to change this situation. ZeehanLin (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Like.. Agreeing to not edit Taiwan related topics and show us you can contribute to the Wikipedia without disrupting it? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's acceptable then so be it. I wonder if if I do come up with new ideas, can I consult others and edit them after getting their approval? My original intention was never to destroy or politically propagandize.ZeehanLin (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No? Do you not understand why you got blocked? Also, why is a topic ban on Taiwan not acceptable? You want to make more edits about it on the articles and their talk pages? You are headed to talk page revocation if you keep refusing to get the point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We are communicating. But you have been threatening to close my talk page permissions. I don't even have the qualifications to ask questions, right? I think I should communicate with other administrators, not you. In your place, I can't say anything, including asking questions, I can only obey like a slave, otherwise my talk page permissions will be closed. Is it allowed for you to do this? Is this a slavery society?

Next, I will try to communicate with other administrators. If you arbitrarily close my talk page permissions, I will report it.ZeehanLin (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on. All this time you are asking your editing privilege for Taiwan back. No consideration given to the unblock condition (which, if you are truly here to build an encyclopedia and know how to contribute constructively, very easy to abide to) so you just keep asking ways to resume your disruption to Taiwan.

So instead of making people spend time trying to respond to on the Taiwan talk page, you're here making admins spend time trying to respond here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Your discussion is already very subjective and extreme. I think you should give yourself a break, at least here.

I will not reply to you anymore to avoid further unreasonable blocks and conflict and misunderstandings between both sides.

Have a good day. ZeehanLin (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

1. In Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Administrator conflicts and involvement, it is said that Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.The administrator and I both participated in the discussion and held opposite views. (His participation) Regardless of whether the block result is changed, the block should be reviewed by other administrators.
2. In Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Editing block options: (Sitewide block) should be used when there is a reasonable assumption that the account would disrupt any page, such as vandalism-only accounts or users that are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia.I edited many articles about transportation on Chinese Wikipedia, but most of them do not exist on English Wikipedia. So it seems that I am on English Wikipedia just to edit Taiwan.
3. I was blocked indefinitely without warning. (There have been some well-intentioned reminders from people other than administrators, but these are not warnings.）My behavior does not belong to WP:DISRUPTONLY, please consider whether the block is excessive.
ZeehanLin (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are arguing process more than the merits, but okay. I don't think one comment constitutes being involved in a content dispute with you. Your editing is exclusively about Taiwan, so a sitewide block is valid as you've not edited about any other topics. The blocking admin had offered to unblock you if you agree to a topic ban from Taiwan-related topics, but you weren't very receptive to that. Your prior messages should be taken as "warnings"; a warning does not have to be a formal statement. To summarize, you've given no reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

I will add that agreeing to abide by a ban as long as you partialy get your way, was not a good look. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Especially when the user page says "Please don't think that I am not objective in my editing of Taiwan just because I am from mainland China." and the user turns out to be engaged in disruptive editing arising from an inability to edit objectively around Taiwan. It seems to be suggesting that anyone who does question their objectivity does so because of discrimination based on national origin and not because their objectivity really is in question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=
I am seeking HELP. I was blocked because I did WP:IDHT behavior without a deep understanding of Wikipedia policies and regulations. My original intention was not to destroy, but my behavior was indeed extreme. I am very sorry and I want to correct my behavior.

See also: WP:IJME

I tried to communicate with the administrator who blocked me in a friendly manner, but the administrator had no patience to answer and kept threatening to block my user page permissions. I couldn't even learn more about this block through communication, so I could only keep silent and obey. This made me confused and angry. In other words, he bit me.

See also: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Because I am currently blocked, I don't know what to do, and I need another administrator to communicate with me in a friendly manner.

Some misunderstanding
# "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, not entry itself.
#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.
ZeehanLin (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
}}

What is it that you need to know that you don't know? The block reason has been communicated to you, as has at least one possible way to get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to know which behaviors, patterns, and methods belong to editing Taiwan-related topics, broadly construed and which do not. I don't want to be charged with a second crime similar to a "catch-all crime", so I am asking. But this administrator just wants me to be silenced.ZeehanLin (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, a movie that was released in both mainland China and Taiwan. I could get blocked again for this if he doesn't make it clear upfront. ZeehanLin (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as your editing is not related to Taiwan (and e.g. the edits are only about the movie in mainland China), I think it would be fine. Please don't assume I want to silence you. I'm only here to stop disruption. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If so, I would definitely not agree, because it means I cannot edit the vast majority of Chinese(language) content and global content. Because the language is the same, a lot of Chinese content can be available both in mainland China and Taiwan. I am only fluent in Chinese. Of course, if it is just not allowed to edit the "nationality" and other fields in these contents, then I can accept it.

As for the rest of what you said, I will not respond. ZeehanLin (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The topic block would be limited to the country (or what kind of entity you would consider it to be) of Taiwan itself. If you want to edit a film made in Taiwan, or a train station in Taiwan, or a Taiwanese person, I'd personally not call that a ban violation, but it is possible for others to disagree.

It is very common for disruptive users to negotiate terms for unblock, but I don't think it has ever worked. This is the last thing I will say: any topic ban you agree to for an unblock is indefinite but not infinite. The idea of an unblock condition is to provide you with an opportunity to show that you can edit normally without causing disruption, and if you can show us that, the topic ban can be appealed. But if your intention is to reinstate the dispute with more and more disruption, you obviously won't want to agree to a topic ban. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we can implement it according to what we just discussed. And I remain non-judgmental about the interpretation of the behavior just mentioned. ZeehanLin (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef:You can adjust the sidewide block to a topic block right now. ZeehanLin (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There is one thing I need to confirm. I have edited the topic about Mainland China before, but you said that my edit was only related to Taiwan. So is Mainland China related to the topic you mentioned about Taiwan? I intend to add an alias to Mainland China (due to different translations), and at the same time it should be a legal concept rather than a geographical concept. These modifications have nothing to do with Taiwan. ZeehanLin (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I may move or archive some content of this page, but I will not delete it. If this may violate any rule, please let me know. ZeehanLin (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to archive, as long as you don't modify anything.

I would recommend you to steer away from political topics because I think you have more potential to cause disruption in that area. How about something that's more distant? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would rather know the exact answer to this question. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, there is no clear consensus there, unlike in the Taiwan entry. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef:I noticed that you were editing other pages, which means you are online. This message is to prevent you from accidentally ignoring these issues.ZeehanLin (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear ZeehanLin, I would strongly suggest that you should not edit the topic about Mainland China, especially related to political contents (were it not related to political contents, which you must have been sure, like the hydrology of Changjiang, you might be allowed to). At least for a short spell (like 3 months). After all, 0xDeadbeef has just given you another chance. 自由雨日 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have enough energy, so I am not going to clarify the technicalities. Feel free to bring this to some other venue (like WP:AN) if you believe clarification is really needed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is strongly recommended that DO NOT TO BE TOO IMPATIENT and PLEASE CALM DOWN before making a judgment. ZeehanLin (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)