User talk:Marvin 2009/Archive 1

April 2009
Please note that Sock puppetry is not allowed in Wikipedia. If I have misread your single article edits, please forgive me. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:09Vocal_ECard_V3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:09Vocal_ECard_V3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:GeneralCompetitionPromo-D dv.ogv
Thanks for uploading File:GeneralCompetitionPromo-D dv.ogv. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:GeneralCompetitionPromo-D dv.ogv
Thanks for uploading File:GeneralCompetitionPromo-D dv.ogv I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.75.41 (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:09Vocal ECard V3.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:09Vocal ECard V3.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:2009VocalCompetition.ogv
Thanks for uploading File:2009VocalCompetition.ogv I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in China‎
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. STSC (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you not hold double standard based on your personal hatred, which is shown by your two edits:[deleting wikilinks] and [adding wikinlink]. Plus, you canceled many other editors' work and launched edit wars in many articles. Such a warning is more suitable to yourself. I only tried to prevent some damages due to your double standard on the topic. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the Hon. prefix because a MP is entitled to the style while in office only. STSC (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You got two things totally reversed. 1. Based on the statement Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (mostly members or former members of the federal Cabinet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honourable is entitled to the style The Honourable (French: l'honorable) for life. Mr. David Kilgour was in Cabinet of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (1993–2003)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chr%C3%A9tien_Ministry. So you should not take the Honourable wiki link away. 2. Though Jiang Zemin and his followers label FG as a cult or evil cult, the Chinese Public Security Dept and China State agent never put FG it their cult/evil cult list (these China government agency made clear in 2000 and 2005, there are altogether 14 cult/evil cult in mainland China. FG was never is that cult/evil cult list). Such a cult label for FG is not existed in any Chinese law or formal government document either. From the FG article, it is clear western scholars do not consider FG as a cult. The Freedom House also stated FG is not a cult - [].So you should not put such a wiki evil cult link there based on your personal hatred. Many Jiang's followers who used to persecute FG practitioners were put into prison in China, like Bo Xi Lai, Zhou Yongkang, etc. It turns out Jiang Zeming's sect is a real evil cult.Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Infobox only has details of him as MP, so I removed the prefix. If he's a QPC, I would put back the prefix. Regarding the 'cult' wikilink, you should know a wikilink is for further detail on the text itself only, it does not mean giving approval on the content. STSC (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, i accept your explanation and correction and won't say you have double standards base on these two edits. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong. STSC (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you launched edit wars many times and are the user who should be warned. I only tried to protect the articles you try to damage. Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A friendly reminder
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Epoch Times. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. STSC (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * this is simply not true. You started such edit wars at many pages. as for this page, i saw one user followed what you suggested on talk page. But somehow you changed your mind and unreasonably deleted his work. This is a damage to the page. To prevent your damage should not be considered to join your edit war. You are the user who should be warned. 03:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. STSC (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katietalk 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-communism#Falun_Gong._There_should_be_images_of_a_protest_and_what_Falun_Gong_are_protesting_about_.28the_persecution_of_Falun_Gong.29
I would be interested in your opinion. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Epoch Times. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * User:Binksternet, what you're doing is not in accordance with wikipedia policy. I will do one more revert. you have ignored talk page discussion and you are attempting to revert to a non-consensus version, which went through many many editing iterations before reaching this state, by force. Just because you lost track of it for two months is no reason to wind it back to where the page was in early december and claim that other people are violating NPOV. don't take this personally, but we are all subject to the same procedural limitations. I am reverting again and invite discussion from the version that has been consensus since early December. Further changes should be singular and iterative, not all-at-once reverts. This message copied to the epoch page also. Happy   monsoon  day  00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Epoch Times
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Epoch Times. STSC (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on the Epoch Times page
Happy  monsoon  day  19:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you revert indiscriminately, as you did at Governmental lists of cults and sects. STSC (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)