User talk:DataDrivenOne

April 2014[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zuan Xin, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. I see that you said "Further substantiation to be added...", but policy says that the templates should remain on the article until you do add that further substantiation. Iago Qnsi 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zuan Xin, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. You have added two sources: a link to a presentation made by an employee of Zuan Xin (e.g. a primary source) and a blog post by a Gamasutra site member (e.g. not a reliable source). These sources address neither of the maintenance templates on the article. Iago Qnsi 00:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Zuan Xin. Iago Qnsi 00:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vianello. This is DataDrivenOne. You did not address my message. I am not familiar with all of these procedures and I do not have any more time for any of this. You all have prevailed. The landmark work of Zuan Xin who has tens of thousands of followers around the world must remain underground. You have blocked me from deleting the article. Are you proposing to leave that article with those unjustly deleterious tags sitting there? Whatever you think about people like us who are his followers, it is unfair and unjust to harm the reputation of this great man master Zuan Xin. He has saved countless people from gambling addiction and saved people millions of dollars of gambling losses. So I repeat. Please advise Vianello as to how this article that has been declared inappropriate for Wikipedia can be deleted immediately so as not to harm the reputation of Zuan Xin. Thank you for getting back to me and informing me as to that. As for your other comments there is no point to any of that. You outrank me and know many many people so I have no say and no rights at this time so I dare not argue or even contest anything. Wikipedia is too difficult a process for me. In another life I could get into it I suppose. Anyway thanks for getting back to me and addressing the issue of deleting the article rather than leaving it maligned unfairly. Sincerely, DataDrivenOne

Your recent editing history at Zuan Xin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Vianello (Talk) 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DataDrivenOne, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

- Vianello (Talk) 02:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zuan Xin[edit]

The article Zuan Xin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Little to no substantiation of claims of notability. Sole contributor is indefinitely blocked and unlikely to execute the total rewrite that would be necessary to bring the article up to meet WP:BIO criteria or correct other issues (see maintenance tags). Numerous claims made unsubstantiated by references given.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. - Vianello (Talk) 02:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vianello, This is DataDrivenOne. Your comments are well meaning but mostly incorrect but you have every right to your opinion. The casino and gambling business is very mysterious and oblique for outsiders. Out of fairness, Vianello, I would now ask that out of respect for the subject of the article the great baccarat master Zuan Xin that the article be deleted immediately. I do not have any more time to spare on this exercise. Furthermore because of the subject matter the substantiation provided is the best that can be gotten. No casino executives will speak for attribution on this subject and the casino and gambling industry exerts great influence on the members of the press who cover this area. Baccarat indeed has been solved as is borne out by the references once understood after reviewing them carefully. But this information will have to remain underground for now. As I said I cannot do any better and so it is only fair that master Zuan Xin not be slighted by this terrible misunderstanding and procedural inefficiency that has been identified. Thank you. Please advise soonest as to how my obviously insufficient effort can be ended as soon as possible. Tens of thousands of followers worldwide appreciate your expeditiously taking this misunderstandedly negatively tagged material off of Wikipedia. In the end it is the fault of nobody. This material is not for Wikipedia I guess. Please advise Vianello the procedure for immediate deletion. You have blocked me so that I cannot delete it myself. Afterword. There is no sockpuppetry going on. The followers of master Zuan Xin are fiercely supportive of him because his teachings have saved them tens of thousands of dollars or more of gambling losses. You can understand that I am sure. I await your next message. Sincerely, DataDrivenOne

In addition to the fact that your behavior matches the other account's, and the CheckUser confirmation, and that you've submitted this conspicuously shortly after the dramatic signoff of the other account, and both accounts have the conspicuous quirk of not signing posts, I don't think an unblock is likely to happen. However, if you wish to submit a request to be unblocked, then at the bottom of this page, please type in: {{unblock|insert-your-reason-here}} Except, of course, insert the reason you wish to argue you should be unblocked, instead of simply the text "insert-your-reason-here". This will produce an unblock request, which other administrators can review. You will need to offer some credible demonstration as to why you are not a sockpuppeteer. This would require explaining why you and the other account were editing the exact same articles, starting the exact same day, in the exact same way, promoting the exact same person, reverting the exact same edits, making the exact same accusations, making the exact same requests, showing up as likely to be the same person on a Checkuser inquiry, and tidily posting responses to the block notices one after the other as well. You will probably want to review the WP:SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DataDrivenOne. Even if you can satisfactorily demonstrate this, you would also need to agree not to engage in further WP:Edit warring, as at the time of the block you had also gone beyond the three-revert rule as well. Another thing I would like to point out: Wikipedia is not the place to bring out underground information. It is for covering individuals, topics, places, groups, etc. that are already notable and known, not for promoting individuals that are not. Please see WP:Notability for information on this. If something is still "underground", in your own words, then it is probably not yet ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hopefully this information is of some use to you. If you submit an unblock request, I will step back to allow an uninvolved administrator to take a look, so do not worry about me immediately vetoing your request - the point is to let someone new take a look at the situation. Good luck. - Vianello (Talk) 04:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick follow-up, I did forget to mention: Alternatively to explaining why you are not a sockpuppet-user (which I anticipate would be difficult), users are also welcome to simply own up to what they've done and make it clear they understand why it's a problem and that they will not do it again. My earlier wording made it sound like I was saying you must refute the cause of your block, but admitting to it and moving past it is also viable. - Vianello (Talk) 04:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vianello. I do not understand the technical jargon. My message requested that this article be deleted as you all have decided it is not worthy of Wikipedia. You have prevailed. There is no sockpuppetry. Just very intense supporters of a great man fighting for his receiving the credit that he deserves since he has tens of thousands of followers. Please unblock me so that I can delete this article before harm come to the reputation of a person who is far greater than most of us on our best day. Alternative you should delete it. Leaving it sitting there is unfair to Zuan Xin. Sincerely, DataDrivenOne DataDrivenOne (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few things for your information. 1: Cooperating with other users off-wiki to achieve the same end is called meatpuppetry, and is also disallowed. If you're implying this is the result of an organized cooperation between two different people, which your statement that this is collaboration between "intense supporters", that's almost as big a problem. 2: If you want the article deleted, it's already had its deletion proposed, so that will come in due time unless someone disputes the deletion nomination or fixes the article. 3: You won't be unblocked to delete an article (which requires an administrator to do anyway), especially as you have not credibly demonstrated that you have not done what you were blocked for. 4: If you want to request to be unblocked, please copy the example test I provided above, and insert the rationale you want to use in place of the filler text ("insert-your-reason-here") that I used. And 5: Wikipedia is not a place for "intense supporters" to enshrine "a great man", as explained on WP:SOAP. It's a place to objectively write encyclopedic articles on notable topics. There are plenty of obscure authors and artists who I think are absolutely brilliant, but no matter how much I like them, it doesn't mean they're all suitable for inclusion. Having a Wikipedia article is not a special honor, a vehicle for promotion, or an award - it's just a source of information about a topic that's already (at least somewhat) broadly known. If you have any further questions not addressed by these points, or if I've been unclear about something, I'll be glad to elaborate further. Thank you for your civil conduct. - Vianello (Talk) 10:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]