User talk:Simpleshooter999

Welcome!
Hi Simpleshooter999! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! 199.80.8.254 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strange that you don't have an account yet seem very well acquainted with Wikipedia. You seem like a seasoned editor to be able to know how to greet people. Nonetheless you are wrong to claim that significant politician Bob Carr criticism of Aspi was unsourced. Here's the source and not interested in a petty edit war. Simpleshooter999 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in fact a very seasoned editor, and you're lucky I'm too lazy to log in. The "petty edit war" is all yours, and you could have taken ownership of your piss-poor grammar, which you silently corrected later on. You know exactly what I mean: "after taking money" is unclear in its modification, and thus easily a BLP violation, since that statement might be applied to Bob Carr. In addition, I'll caution you for using words like "lying" in an edit summary: it's a blatant violation of WP:AGF and an attempt to deflect. (PS: greeting people is easy: just type . Big deal.) 199.80.8.254 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I may not know much about you but you need to respect boundaries. You changed goal posts and had outright made a false statement that the information had no Source. That was proven to be easily false as a source was provided. When you realise you couldn't claim it had no Source, you made dubious accusations that the grammar was poor. If that was actually true and it isn't, then that still doesn't give you an excuse to completely blanket remove all that key information after claiming it had no Source. You could had just modified the grammar however you just wanted the information gone, and used really flawed and questionable reasoning to ensure that the info is removed. In fact, there's still to this day within the same source, a large quantity of criticisms against ASPI that has been heavily watered down and minimized by biased editors unwilling to have anything negative about Aspi in that page. Simpleshooter999 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Heads up Notice


It is likely that RhodeRage is FobTown or Stormandfury.

His account was created not that long after FobTown's latest sock was blocked. His name is real similar to FobTown's past confirmed sock, RhodeScholar. 

He is now adding back in FobTown's sock edits in at least 3 different articles and likely to continue. Below are the Virtually identical edits when he was FobTown or his other socks. And below is RhodeRage re-adding them back in lately in the same language and content his socks had done before.

(Sino-africa relations)

Fobtown;

RhodeRage;

(Huawei)

FobTown added in this edit to Huawei that was factually wrong.  RhodeRage adds it back in again despite its factually wrong. Thankfully another editor reverted it and told him it was not constructive.

(High speed rail in China)

FobTown's socks (JadeKrusade and Dragonluver22)

RhodeRage

(Covid protests in China)

Stormandfury

RhodeRage

Additionally his last sock got blocked just around 2 week ago. 

His account (RhodeRage) is new and created shortly afterwards, and among his first edits is to go straight to the 3 articles that he had edit warred on before and add back in Fobtown's old pov edits. Despite pieceofmetal telling him later that he was re-adding sock edits. He Just adds it back in and insist they are good. But they are not.

I would had turned a blind eye to it. Except his latest edits just adds in false information spitefully. In (China's high-speed rail), he says that says China's high speed rail debts are 1.8 trillion. Except the source says 900 billion. Nowhere does it say 1.8 trillion. He just adds that extra figure in for fake propaganda that's unsourced.

His sock also again wrote how Chinese can't afford the tickets or their income is lower than other countries. Except his source (yet Again) doesn't even say that at all. He just adds fake unsourced information and hope that nobody fact checks. And why I had in the past, repeatedly reverted those edits not to spite him, but because he kept adding in such inappropriate original research, as well as doing so much deletion of information that he dislikes. Which is why he reminded me of Fobtown and was correct. There's other evidence but think the above is enough to prove.

I came here to put on the record that I warned people. Admin can block my account and should had already, but they should not turn a blind eye to an obvious sock who is not here to build an encyclopaedia.

Looking at Fobtown past account, the behavioural pattern is consistently either to hype up the negatives, or to remove the positive information on China. An example is that he edited this sentence;[

*A 2019 World Bank study estimated the rate of economic return of China's high-speed rail network to be at 8 percent, which is well above the opportunity cost of capital in China for major long term infrastructure investments. The study also noted a range of benefits which included shortened travel times, improved safety and better facilitation of tourism, labor and mobility, as well as reducing highway congestion, accidents and greenhouse emissions as some automobile travellers switch from car use to rail. The institution also found "a broad range of travelers of different income levels choose HSR for its comfort, convenience, safety and punctuality." *

He just butchers it and eliminates out the positive parts because he's biased against such info. In the end, the Same sentence looks like this, with so much content taken away.

A World Bank study found "a broad range of travelers of different income levels choose HSR for its comfort, convenience, safety and punctuality."

Of course you know this as you had real issues with Fobtown too in the past. His pattern of mass vandalism is a key reason why people had issues with him. I should be blocked but so does Fobtown. If he stops edit warring, then I wouldn't need to return to warn you. You had previously reported Stormandfury before. I think RhodeRage is Stormandfury or Fobtown and is back again with his new account, RhodeRage.Simpleshooter999 (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh and one last thing was also his talk page and his latest edit on Huawei page. FobTown added in this edit to Huawei that was factually inaccurate. However I didn't delete it but corrected it after taking the time to read the source.  But he didn't care for accurate information but was just there for adding inaccuracies. And he reverted it again. Thankfully another editor became aware and wrote to him on his talk that his edit was not constructive and undid it.   but it's typical for FobTown to predictably edit like this so I can tell it's him just on behaviour alone. He literally returns to add back in his old edits and why it's so easy to know it's him.Simpleshooter999 (talk)
 * More convinced that he is him. Most of his edits is to go to Topics that FobTown frequented. And add back in his desired pov edits. Like this.  and   and both times, other editors had to revert it for being dumb.    And thanks for reporting him. Already I see he has a lot of interests in common and identical pushed pov edits to FobTown. The real concerning issues is that he constantly blanket deletes information or re-add in his inaccurate edits. It's his Memo. My guess is that the sock was angry he got blocked. Created an account soon after he got blocked for the purpose of revenge and comes back to remove paragraphs that he is biased against, but also push his reverted edits back in. He makes it too easy and obvious to spot him. And I would had tipped admin or you anonymously from IP but wanted you to know it's from me. And for Fobtown, who is sure to stalk my talk, to know who really detected him first. Simpleshooter999 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This Account is over

 * This account actually is over already and had accepted that. But the irony is that I dealt and handled many vandals throughout my term. I edited to undo vandalism and unsourced info. I wouldn't even mind them if one came back to actually edit properly and would had turned a blind eye. But few others seems to want to fact check and ensure the multiple new additions are actually supported by their given sources. So I usually tended to it and removed only if sources don't support such edits. Ie,  ] but no good deed goes unpunished. So despite seeing unsourced edits pop up again, realise it's not really my job to fix it.  And I am done with editing and won't be back. If I do happen to again spot the same familiar socks aka goldendragon (and think I am really good at spotting them now), I would only report to admin about recognising such obvious vandalism and socks, via anonymous email like I done today. . Not here.Simpleshooter999 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)