User talk:Aogouguo

This is Aogouguo talk page

Iran election map
There are some updates that are needed. Bahrain, Belarus, Kuwait, Senegal, Turkmenistan, and the UAE all need to be shaded green. It also appears that Sri Lanka is in the wrong shade of green. I would make these changes myself but unfortunately I don't know how, so I thought I would come to you, since you've created the latest version. Thanks. --Tocino 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and BTW, Greenland is not a member of the EU, and since Denmark hasn't said anything about Iran, Greenland should be neutral grey. --Tocino 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, this is my last one for tonight. :) Oman needs to be green. --Tocino 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland
I'd suggest that you read Names of the Irish state. You thought that Republic of Ireland was the proper name of the state, however this is incorrect, it is not an official name, but a mere colloquial one in the United Kingdom. Your changes were reverted and I'd suggest you enlighten yourself to the facts in future before making similar changes again.  M I T H  23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please self revert your change at Argentina. Once reverted you should go to the talk page to provide your rationale instead of edit warring. Disruptive behaviour is likely to end you up in a block. You should self revert and use the talk page where the issue can then be sorted out.  M I T H  23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the talk pages I'm the only one who's dicussed the topics, hence I made the change. Aogouguo (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not said a word on Talk:Argentina. Please self revert before an admin comes along. I have already asked one to take action if you have not corrected your actions soon.  M I T H  00:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Go look, my other account user:Sogosg discussed the matter. Aogouguo (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aogouguo, I'm also a little concerned about some of the changes your making. Some of them are making rather reckless changes to very longstanding versions of articles. Also, repeatedly restoring your changes is not going to help facilitate such changes, and will merely serve to impair your standing as an editor.


 * May I suggest that when changing leads and infoboxes about major countries, you make a proposal on the talk page first? Such articles are usually very mature and watched and cherished by a very large group of editors (and readers), and certain phrases and images have often been discussed with painstaking detail and consensus.


 * Furthermore, I'm going to block User:Sogosg indefinately. Multiple accounts are broadly frowned upon at Wikipedia, and using them to sway opinion is a practice that is forbidden, and could get you blocked. --Jza84 | Talk  00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You just have to self revert your Argentina edit and then discuss it. Then your editing will be viewed as constructive.  M I T H  00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you now, unless you self revert and engage in discussion the chances are you will be blocked and the old map will continue there for another period of time. If you self revert and discuss chances are a compromise can be made.  M I T H  00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please self revert your change to the map at Argentina to the old one, then I will discuss what can be done to make the map more NPOV. If not I will get an admin to do and they will likely block you for disruptive behaviour. So what will it be?  M I T H  00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not be bullied into having all my work reverted because I made one edit to an article which upset an editor and now they're undoing my recent edits as a consequence. Aogouguo (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The revert will be temporary until it is discussed. I agree with your reasons for thinking of changing the map but you must revert your change. I will discuss the matter with you once reverted. If not the map will likely stay on the old map for a long period of time.  M I T H  00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/88.110.40.109 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.  M I T H  13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you not going to defend yourself or explain anything? If found guilty your ip range will likely be blocked due to previous history of operating more than one account.  M I T H  16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it seems I'm trying to being harassed off of Wikipedia. If editors think I'm a sock puppet that's for them to decide. Aogouguo (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock puppetry is a serious charge. It is that disruptive behaviour which will lead to your block if found guilty, not the actions of someone else. If you believe you have not used sock puppets then defend yourself, otherwise your silence will likely lead to your blocking, now that you have been accused with evidence given.  M I T H  16:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. If you do not self revert you will reported for breaking this rule.  M I T H  18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to say - if I was trying to bully you - I'd keep on reverting you - instead I only made one revert. Think that one over. I'm guessing you're young, maybe a teenager, but you need to learn to respect Wikipedia policy. Other editors have to comply to the same rules as you. You break them, they don't. Hence you are finding yourself in a lot of trouble.  M I T H  20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you weren't trying to bully you would try using the article talk page first instead of just going straight ahead and reporting me to admins. AND you wouldn't be looking through my recent changes history and reverting a good many edits I've made recently. Aogouguo (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I count one revert today unless I'm mistaken and that page is on my watchlist. You don't use the talk page yourself, you just hit the revert button - hence the need for action. You could just self revert - or you can continue kicking and screaming as you are now. I hope its the former.  M I T H  20:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus is needed for maintaining the previous consensus and long standing version, hence I haven't used the talk page. Consensus is needed for changing the previous consensus, yet you haven't used the talk page. Why not? You want the change so much why not use the talk page and propose it and get it discussed. Why would I propose your change? Aogouguo (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's you who stated on the Argentina article that changes to long standing articles need to be discussed in the talk page before being implemented when I made a change on that article and you reverted it. Same is happening now. Aogouguo (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I have not blocked you per the report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but this was purely on a technicality and because I believe that you are capable of editing collegially. However, any further edit-warring on this article will almost certainly result in a block. Please follow WP:BRD and use the talkpage. Black Kite 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
To be frank, it looks fine to me. Can you provide some diffs?  Rgood erm  ote    00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are citations. I've gone ahead and surfed through that. I still can't honestly tell you that there is any form of vandalism. It just looks like you are reverting the edits alone and in addition a block to this user is just not feasible as the user is an IP and has not edited for roughly an hour and I have noted that this is indeed an IP that does travel...if I read the WHOIS right.  Rgood  erm  ote    01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits too old, the dates are of the 24th to the 25th even if I could block this IP I wouldn't. If the IP starts up again with his behavior then do a standard revert, warn and give the IP a full set of warnings (all four of them) and then report to WP:AIV, even latest edits are too old being almost an hour and a half old. All acts of vandalism must be with in the hour (unless it is a user account) and in the same day (unless user account) because we must assume that it is a different person behind the IP.  Rgood erm  ote    01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Map of the People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg


The file File:Map of the People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Superseded by near duplicate on commons."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 02:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)