User talk:Dyingforfreedom

September 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at City University of Hong Kong. Citobun (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. only (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to block
I read your review already, below are my last response. I would not mention Citobun in this response.

Yeung Kin Man Academic Building, actually called ACademic 1 originally. I know that causes my relative once studied there. Nowadays people calls it AC1 for short. So, bizarre ?

For sock, I could only say I tried my best to revert that page back to balance, which filled only with hatred. Admittedly, breaking some rules here in the process. The page I reverted contains both good side of the school: history and the bad side: controversies. And I still believe it is the best version. The reason is that the people who read the page are the public, potential students, and alumni. That is why it is important to serperate the two sides with serprate sections. So people can evaluate things throughly. Other school page also contains similar fashion. Just imagine what other people think when they compared school to school through wiki. Previous version is unfair to the school, potential students and public. The school loses repuation, student chooses to attend other less best school for bucks, the public misleaded. They deserve to know each events, good and bad, in an oragaised way.

Regarding ranking data, those are legit. Only reputable rankings and credible sources are cited. As with other school, that page needs that. Check orginal raw sources such as SciVal/Scopus by Elsevier and InCites by Web of Science for facts and you can see why the school is research intensive. So, Promotional ?

Sometimes, people have to do the right thing, even if it breaks rules blatantly. Remember why rules exist here.

I would not edit this page, or other wiki pages anymore. Goodbye.


 * Regarding the "controversies" section, please see the guideline at Criticism. Generally it is preferred to integrate that type of mixed-bag "Controversies" section into the prose of the article. The section on the MFA programme was originally in the history section – there is no need to hive it off into a separate section. I did not add any new "negative" or "hostile" content to the article whatsoever and I explained the reasons for my edits in my edit summaries, which you chose to ignore. You are totally mischaracterising the nature of my edits. And I have never interacted with the administrator who blocked you. Citobun (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)