User talk:My Tibet

Wikipedia is currently not reflecting the correct situation in Tibet. The article Tibet (just like the Tibetan nation) is under the rule of certain chinese nationalists. I am trying to edit the article to make it objective, truthful, to show how the Tibetan people are suffering and to bring some light to these unfortunate events. The article has a certain "tone". The Tibetan Autonomous Region article is simply POV. Now if the article was really written by everybody and the admin wasn't a chinese and a nationalist we could have a democratic place to discuss these issues. Instead Wikipedia, just like in the real world is reflecting the interests of the few, the admins. I have tried to edit simple things with no success! Me 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your edits
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  An important message Please be extremely careful when adding material to articles or talk pages that it does not involve defamation. Comments that defame an individual may leave you open to being sued by them. Your status here, whether as a signed-on user or as an anonymous IP, would not protect you. Someone you defame could get a court order instructing your service provider to supply your details to them. They could then sue you for damages. While Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act may protect Wikipedia from being sued for defamation, it may not protect the person who posted a defamatory claim on a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees has ruled that: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, [personal information] data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. (Wikimedia privacy policy in full)

This notice has been left for you because another Wikipedia user suspects that, perhaps innocently, you may have defamed someone in your contributions. Please recheck your edits. Do not make allegations against someone unless you have provided evidence from a reliable publication, and then make sure you describe the allegations in accordance with our content policies, particularly Verifiability and No original research. Don't rely on hearsay, rumours, or things you believe without evidence to be facts, and don't use sources to create a novel narrative. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all claims.

If you repeatedly defamed someone, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you find that you have inadvertently defamed someone in an article, do two things:
 * 1) Remove the defamation from the article immediately.
 * 2) Leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard saying that you have accidentally included defamatory claims in a named article or articles. (Don't repeat the claims. They will be able to see from your edit removing them what they were.) The claim will then be deleted from the page history.

Once that is done, and the defamation is gone completely from our records, the problem should be resolved.  Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. 

Moreover, do not remove contents from your own user talkpage.  Aranherunar 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes master, please do not remove what I am about to post on your NEW talk page. You do make me laugh. Also have in mind that calling someone a vandal when they are simply trying to add a POV tag is not good and could get you to change your user name YET AGAIN! Oh, my! :) Me 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So I suppose you are now accusing me as being another account of..perhaps Ran? Sorry, that just does not make sense. Your lack of common sense makes me feel ashamed for all your so-called Tibetan national friends. If Ran is an admin and can ban you, why would he make a new account just to argue with you? Please see . I'm not a new user. Thank you. Aranherunar 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not Ran, but another chinese nationalist, trying to claim Tibet and Taiwan (and possibly others) are China. Not gonna happen, buddy. Tibetans dislike chinese ideas and manners and are not happy under your chinese rule. If you have free democratic elections in Tibet China will be out of Tibet as quick as I say 1,2,3. But keep on opressing and forcing people into a state union they never wanted. That will bring you lots and lots of coresponding Karma. Cheers and Tsering! Me 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tibetans dislike Chinese ideas and manners? Yes, some perhaps do. But can you provide sources? You have failed to provide ANY. In the meantime, I suggest you read about the history of Tibet both before and after 1950, as you clearly know little about both. Aranherunar 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Master! :) I read Tibetan History written by Tibetans. You are suggesting I read the PRC history on Tibet, which is like reading the USSR history on it's EX members. Admit it, Tibet belongs to the Tibetan people and the chinese need to mind their own business, considering their people are living in poverty. Can you provide sources the Tibetans in Tibet like the curent situation? Me 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I do not need to provide any sources for Tibet because I'm not making any edits. Since your edits contradicts what most other editors acknowledge, I would suggest you to provide some sources.
 * Tibetan history written by Tibetans are not necessarily true and accurate - What I am telling you to read is a history text written from an objective point of view, not from Tibetans, nor Chinese. From what I have gathered through your edits, it's either that you did not at all read any part of Tibetan history, or your history books are trying to hide something, like the fact that Tibet has long been a part of China. Since you so surely claimed that you have read history books on Tibet, I suppose it'll be the books that is the problem.
 * Also, your view is terribly one-sided. What you are doing is to hear just one point of a thing and regard everything that may contradict it as 'lies'. I would suggest that, since this is an Encyclopedia, that you accept all kinds of views, including what you would call 'nationalism', not just calling contributors names and crying about injustice. Aranherunar 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to argue with chinese nationalists. Tibet has NOT been a part of China for long.That is your POV. Just because the Tibetans didn't feel the need to create huge military and were isolated does not mean they were part of anything. But if you are not editing on the article Tibet stop trolling me. And another thing, Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia. Even the owner suggests not to use Wikipedia by itself and to look for other sources because the edits are not done by specialists but mostly by people under 25 with access of a PC. It is not much different than Encyclopediadramatica. Me 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It IS an encyclopedia. Please read guidelines by Wikipedia itself. It has no single 'owner'. It is owned by a non-profit organization. Your claim that would send the 'owner' mails and get admins banned is, again, impossible.
 * Tibet has been part of China for long. If you don't even agree with this I can say you have read no history book on Tibet anyhow. It has been under Proper China rule in the Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty, and if I measure the size of Tibet by your standard (according to your userpage), then parts of it had always been under Chinese rule, since Qin Dynasty, and perhaps earlier. Not mentioning that Tibetans are part of the Chinese culture itself.
 * I am not editing the article Tibet, and I am not trolling you. I am merely suggesting you to refine your edits because they'll help nobody: not Wikipedia, not other contributors, and not yourself. I am certain that more than 95% of your edits will be reverted, thus wasting both your time, contributors' time, and of course, readers' time. Your methods to 'reveal the truth of Tibet to the world, with Wikipedia as a base', are totally ignorant. A few major problems you have are that: 1. You would not provide sources or evidence for your claims, 2. You continuely break rules which will get you banned, by personally insulting and vandalizing other users, blanking pages, removing contents, etc., 3. You do not listen to advice, 4. You do not cooperate with other users, deeming all of them 'Nationalists', 5. You have no knowledge on the subject you are trying to argue, 6. You cannot keep calm and gentle when discussing matters, 7. You do not know what is Wikipedia and cannot follow its guidelines, and 8. You do not wish to correct any of these problems. Aranherunar 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling me. If you have a specific problem with any of my edits please let me know. I am following Wikipedia rules now and I have nothing to say to you unless you ask me a specific question on my edits. I will say one thing to you and that is it. Open your eyes and talk to some Tibetans that live in Tibet. Bye now. Me 03:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope indeed you would follow the rules (if you know them). As for your last comment, I do not edit on the article Tibet so there is no need for me to talk to Tibetans. Instead, the reason I am here on your talk page is to advise you not to break the rules - I am trying to help you. Let me make this clear - I do not disagree with any of your edits and I am not supposed to. However, I am disagreeing with your conduct on Wikipedia, since you personally insulted numerous contributors and vandalized user pages (not just talk pages, but user pages, such as Ran's). The reason I am raising the issue on Tibet is to show you that your beliefs may not be the only one worth mentioning, or may not be the only one factual, therefore using that as an example to advise you to improve your edits in the future. Aranherunar 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you done now? China will collapse one day just like USSR and Yugoslavia and Tibet will be free. It will be in another future life and my kids will not see it but we will be back and enjoying our freedom. Me 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not yet done. I see you have not followed the rules again in your edits. Please 1. Keep calm, 2. No personal attacks, and 3. Be NPOV: Do not employ completely personal opinions anyhow (nor hearsays) - not even in talk pages. Read Wikipedia guidelines on Verifiability. Thank you. Aranherunar 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy, I live in the USA, where we have freedom of speech. I am not sure what your problem is now, but I can post personal opinions on talk pages. Everybody does it. PLEASE STOP trolling ME. I may have to ask an admin to help me out. Now please be so kind to go away. Me 06:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, first, I'm not trolling you. If I'm trolling you I won't bother to point out what rules you are breaking. And no, you have no right to tell me to go away - This is a user talk page, not your page. I am here to remind you what rules you have broken, even after you promised to go by the rules.
 * Like, here. I don't know if you intended to do that or not, but that can be seen as vandalism because you copied a warning on your user talk page to the person's talk page without any quotes, changes nor reason.
 * The problem I had with you is that you have absolutely no source. Yes, you said you have Tibetan friends all around you, your wife is a Tibetan - blah blah blah. Please note that these sources are not used inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia standard is that we use third-party, neutral and completely reliable sources, not just your Tibetan friends or books (which nobody is sure you have, anyways, since you have failed to give evidence).
 * This is not the matter of freedom of speech. You come here to contribute, and thus you have to contribute by the rules. Else it's utterly meaningless.
 * Again, please read the pages throughly that I have shown you, these: Keep calm, No personal attacks and NPOV. And yet again, hope you will follow the rules and listen to other's advise. Aranherunar 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

there is actually proof that tibet was an independent nation: first tibetan passport the treaty between the tang dynasty of china and tibet

the same pillar that once used to be in changan (destroyed by cultural revolution?) alos stands in lhasa. it is written in both chinese and tibetan.

it is translate as:

"the great king of Tibet, the divine manifestation, the bTsan-po and the great king of China, the chinse ruler Hwang Te, nephew and uncle, having consulted about the alliance of their dominions have made a greate treaty and ratified the agreement.

''both Tibet and China shall keep the country and frontiers of which they now are in possession. the whole region to the east of that being the country of Great China and the whole region to the west being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side of that frontier there shall be no warfare, no hostile invasions and no seizure of terrority.''

now that the dominions are allied and a great treat of peace has been made in this way, since it is necessary also to continue the communication of plesant message between nephew and uncle, envoys setting out from either side shall follow the old establishe route.

''according to the close and friendly relationship between nephew and uncle the customary courtesy and respect shall be practiced. between the two countries, no smoke or dust shall appear. not even a word of sudden alarm or of enmity shall be spoken and from those who guard the frontier upwards,all shall live at east without suspicion or fear, their land being their land and thei bed their bed.. and in order that this agreement establishing a great era when Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed, the Three Jewels, the body of the Saints, and the sun and the moon, planets and star have been invoked as witnesses."''

the book is: The status of Tibet: History, Rights, and Prospects in International Law by Dr. Michael C. van Walt van Pragg Copyright 1987 Published by Wisdom Publications in London


 * comment: if i put the quote box, it kinda messes up the page

Wikipedia is not a forum for political debate
Hi there. Please consider WP:NOT a soapbox, and leave your political opinions off article talk pages. They are causing unnecessary tension among editors. If there is some political comment which is appropriate to the discussion at hand, that is fine. However, long sections created purely for the expression of political opinion does not really help improving articles. --Sumple (Talk) 04:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not creating pure political opinion. Please give an example as I have commented on a lot of things today. I am not sure what is your issue. I plan on adding, edditing a lot of articles. I appoligize for the incovinience this may have caused you and if you have any other questions please let me know. Me 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a political debator. Just a religious one. Tibetan Buddhism is my main interest and it seems and it is obvious you are making it a political thing. I KNOW WHY! Also I am very calm, as calm as a Tibetan lake before the chinese turned it into a powerplant. Get it? Me 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you'll have to be as calm as a Tibetan lake after the chinese turned it into a powerplant.
 * You are creating pure political opinion. Please note that you cannot in ANY way post anything that you are thinking about yourself. You've misunderstood Wikipedia. Like I said, please read the guidelines on editing in Wikipedia - absolutely NO personal opinions. What you are writing on talk pages and what you are editing on articles completely violate that rule - example:

And please, no racism. Not all Chinese are nationalists, and not all nationalists are POV. . Hope you will not violate the rulers again, and happy editing. Aranherunar 08:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No personal opinion on user pages and talk pages? Are you sure about that? I will have to check. Most talk pages I see are nothing but personal opinion. I agree the article it self can not be personal opinion unless that opinion is backed by reference. So could you please stop attacking me because I disagree with your particular chinese nationalistic view? It is just an example of your POV. Why don't you attack or "advice" someone not relevant to your POV? Actually this is not a question. Please STOP breaking your own rules. Me 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's some very damaging misunderstanding in you. Again, let me get this clear. I'm not attacking you. If I'm attacking you it'd be like calling you a 3-year-old, a moron, whatever you can think of. I'm here to advise you, and I'm pretty sure if you don't listen to the advise you'll get banned sooner or later.
 * Again, I am disagreeing with nothing about the content of your edits, and I believe you are not disagreeing about any of mine because 1. They are not at any way related to Chinese nationalism, 2. Which proves that you did not actually see any of my edits. I'm not a Chinese nationalist. If every Chinese in wikipedia is a nationalist, the communists are doing a really good job, especially because they themselves are not nationalists (the nationalist government is in Taiwan).
 * To clarify, I'm not even Chinese.
 * And yes, another thing. "personal opinion unless that opinion is backed by references". You're right, except for one thing, a personal opinion could not be backed by references, because that way it would not be personal. Rather, what I meant (What user Sumple meant) by personal opinion is your own research, which would not have any reference unless you're a renowned researcher. So please do not insert any research or comment of your own, not in articles, nor in talk pages, because they're not helping. What you understood as personal opinions are suggestions for articles, personal understandings, et cetera. Note that personal understandings are not personal opinions. A person may have a different understanding for a thing, and that's personal understanding, but personal opinion is something that you conclude/create yourself.
 * Some examples of your personal opinions or own research are that you repeatedly claim your Tibetan wife and Tibetan friends are supplying you lots of data for situations in Tibet, or your view of the Chinese government. These are own research that you concluded by yourself. However, sadly, they could not be included in Wikipedia as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only takes it source from other websites or books, not a person.
 * Lastly, and yet again, I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to get you not banned. So instead of calling what I am not (and what other users are not as well), I would very much hope you will follow my advice and the rules as well. They're not my "own rules", thank you. Aranherunar 04:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well what I am talking about, and please do not assume automatically that someone's nationality will determine their viewpoint. What I posted above was just a friendly reminder so that you, and others, can continue to enjoy Wikipedia and make worthwhile contributions.
 * Wikipedia is *not* a soapbox. No part of it, and that includes articles, talk pages, or other pages, should be used to canvass some partisan political viewpoint unrelated to an article, *nor* to attack another user. Hopefully we can continute to work together on articles in a reasoned fashion. --Sumple (Talk) 10:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea which edit you are talking about. Me 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not matter, anyhow. User Sumple has explained the guidelines clearly enough. As long as you remember and follow them clearly, there would be no problem. Aranherunar 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Tibet
I may or may not agree with you about Tibet, but you can't make your user page into an alternative article about Tibet. Fred Bauder 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported
You have been reported at Usernames for administrator attention because your user account's name may be inappropriate. It may have nationalist overtones. Regardless of what the outcome may be, please consider changing your user name to something more reasonable. 122.105.149.196 (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)