User talk:Thisisaniceusername

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wildlife, you may be blocked from editing. ''Just STOP your link-spamming until the deletion discussion is concluded, and please take some notice of the explanations why your links are inappropriate. If your article survives, and you can make it applicable to the links you want to add, then you can still do that afterwards. But as it stands, your article is only about some conclusions drawn by one particular study by a Dr Meng, and as such is not applicable as a "See also" link from those other articles. If you carry on like this, you're likely to be blocked from editing before the AfD is even finished. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)'' Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide offical wikipedia statement say I can not add links at this moment, otherwise its your personal opinion not wikipedia. And do you read reference at all? only one academic said so???? All from Dr Meng? Please do not disrupt the work of other editors. otherwise you are likely to be blocked (I just use your words here, I dont take it seriously, just like what you did)--Youdontownwiki (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, the article is up for deletion discussion, yes? The !votes are currently heading towards delete/merge, yes? So there's a pretty good chance it will be deleted, yes? If it is, that means removing your links is just going to make more work for people if/when it comes to deletion - and there's no urgent need to the links to be added this week, is there? (Note that you adding links will not strengthen your case at AfD at all). So it's just plain common sense to hold off adding links until the AfD is complete, don't you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I didn't say "only one academic said so" - what I'm saying is that all your article currently consists of is a few opening sentences and a list of stuff taken from Dr Meng. So if another article is referring to Dr Meng's conclusions, a link would be appropriate. But it really isn't a valid target for a "See also" link - just have a look around and see what kind of mature and high-quality articles "See also" sections link to, and note that they are generally pretty short lists to avoid overwhelming an article with links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee. Do you know what you are doing is stopping the spread of up-to-dated important knowledge? This is the most annoying part. The debate is far from conclusive, there are lots of dispute within people commented if you are honest about the current development. and its wrong for you to judge the article from its first version. you still have this mentality. I can give you many examples of much crappy articles in Wikipedia than this one. You should not take this issue as a personal battle. You aim to win your pride at the price of the advancement of human knowledge. You have biased view to my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 10:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee. The links should have nothing to do with the article, but you used the case to accuse me for spaming on the debate page in the first place. This strength your debate on dfa by defaming me. This is not ethical. It was not spamming, its nothing more than disagreement in editing.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Animal protection. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wuh Wuz  Dat  15:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The 3 reverts rule does not apply. because my reverts are 'Reverting obvious vandalism'

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Animal protection. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Both you and the other editor need to stop reverting each other, and discuss your dispute at the talk page. TFOWR 16:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

...also, have a read of WP:VAND. Good faith edits are never vandalism. Please do not refer to other editors' good faith edits as vandalism. TFOWR 16:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring sanction
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Animal protection. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. The full report of this case is at WP:AN3. This block prevents you, the person, from editing Wikipedia for 48 hours under any account. Use our unblock appeal process (as described in the above notice) if you believe this block is not justified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection, you may be blocked for vandalism. Please do not remove my comments from Talk pages - my comment is factual and is relevant to the final decision Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Wikihounding

'Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_blanking 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. '

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DO NOT REMOVE MY COMMENTS FROM THE DISCUSSION Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Identifying the fact that multiple comments in the same discussion are from the same editor is not prohibited by the above policy - if you continue to try to hide the fact that you contributed to the same discussion with three different IDs, you could be seen as guilty of sockpuppetry - see WP:SPI Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do that no problem I am not tried to hid, I even told you in my talk page the link between the ip and first user name, but you are guilty to do it without my consent.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

'unless that person voluntarily had posted '

'When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACOIN

Also my editing was also about the harrasment of another editor, you should not revert them all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs)
 * This is not harassment. It does not constitute "Posting another person's personal information..." to link one account with another. Thisisaniceusername, stop messing around with the AfD and let it run its course. TFOWR 11:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. – B.hotep •talk• 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

please note following actions are also guilty in Wikipedia policies (under uncivil) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACIV

not "Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users."

"ill-considered accusations of impropriety; ' and '(c) lying to mislead,including deliberately asserting false information;"

"referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong."


 * I'm sure everyone here is well aware of Wiki policies, so you don't need to keep typing them out verbatim, it just looks like wiki-lawyering. Please try to take the advice of everyone (including Boing who has actually been trying to help you come to terms with policy) and stay out of trouble. – B.hotep •talk• 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

review wikipedia'a policy is for only one reason, for the interests of wikipedia, no groups or individuals interests should take over the interest of wikipedia.

Stop removing comments from the AfD and accusing people of harrassment! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. – B.hotep •talk• 13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TFWOR said "stop messing around with the AfD", I agreed. You didn't listen, so this is your second block. – B.hotep •talk• 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also said "This is not harassment", so I'm surprised at the reason given in the unblock request, below. Thisisaniceusername, drop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and address your behaviour instead. TFOWR 13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits you removed were not harrassment and you are blocked for disruption, not vandalism. – B.hotep •talk• 13:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not going to review this request, since I have previously reviewed an unblock request, but I would like to point out two things:
 * This policy, under the section "signs of disruptive editing," states: "resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." By and large, rather than attempt to listen to arguments presented on the AFD, you continue to evade and battle around those issues, instead of addressing them.  Also, removing comments that you don't like is against WP:TPO.  Doing this once is not a huge deal, but you refused to listen to the feedback on your talk page informing you that this was not appropriate.
 * Most policy exists to document the existing behavior of the community, not to alter it. If you are blocked for doing X, even though X is not explicitly against policy, and nobody is willing to unblock you, then X is effectively against policy, even though this is not documented anywhere.
 * I hope this sheds some light on your block. --Chris (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reorganized reply to make dialogue easier. --Chris (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to point #1
 * this is a false claim, I listened, and improved article incorporated others opinions.
 * see the difference of the versions
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=371171620&oldid=370241929
 * administrators also need provide evidence for statements, just to be fair--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to point #2
 * thanks for confirm that this block was not based on any written Wikipedia policy--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC).


 * In reply to your first point, copying content from other Wikipedia articles does not make an article any more credible. Further, the only references I have seen related to the original content you added are:
 * A self-published thesis in book form. Fails WP:V per WP:SPS.
 * hello, cite the online version of the dissertation is just for the Convenience of readers, people can definitely to go the university to get the original version which is not self published and is peer reviewed. academic conference article has cited this dissertation. see google scholar for detail http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cluster=17938011654844695435&hl=en&as_sdt=200

--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Several disguised links (you should have assumed good faith--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)) to the above book. (At least two "references" are links to the same content in alternate form, or are links to a book database search result page for the book.  I shouldn't have to tell you why these don't count as references.)
 * A huge list of article abstracts. I don't know any situation in which citing this would be appropriate.
 * its just let some people know the sources is reliable animal protection is consider different in different place, when you agreed the reliability of the source, because so many reliable sources republished it, those duplicated abstracts can be removed, I was prepared to do that

--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Several other peripheral websites that would not be appropriate to cite in an academic context.
 * and following books cited the hsus website in their reference
 * http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tbs=bks%3A1&q=humanesociety.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
 * and following book cited the world animal net that I cited
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=worldanimal.net&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1

--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, I see no substantive support for the main content of this article. The issue is not so much that the sources are not suitable for use on Wikipedia, but with your inability to accept this, and your insistence that they are in fact suitable, despite many, many editors telling you the opposite.  See WP:IDHT.


 * In short everyone can have their opinions on facts, but their opinions may not be neutral. --Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In reply to your second point, I linked you to two policy pages that prohibit actions you have taken. My point is that policy documents community reaction.  Policy does not prescribe community reaction.  --Chris (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know in fact wikipedia is regulated by people's opinions not by written policies, I didn't know that. So article may got discriminated just because the discrimination may be supported by more people.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to Thisisaniceusername: You say "Thanks for letting me know in fact wikipedia is regulated by people's opinions not by written policies". Wikipedia is, in fact, regulated by neither opinions nor policies, it is regulated by consensus (click on the link to read all about it). Written policies reflect consensus, they don't dictate it, as Chris has been trying to explain. Interaction between Wikipedia editors is also guided by the assumption of good faith, and I think this whole sorry episode is down to you failing to do that when people offered critique of the article, and tried to offer some guidelines to you. If you had stopped and thought "These might just be decent people with lots of experience developing this encyclopedia, so they might mean well and might have some valid points", then we might have got somewhere constructively. But instead your reaction was to assume you were the victim of personal attacks and come out fighting, and that's usually the route downhill. Anyway, I'm only saying all this because I'm hoping there might still be a constructively way forward once your block is lifted. If you wish to play a part in building this excellent resource, you really will have to change your attitude to other editors, and engage in the civil collegiate culture that exists here - but if you can only live by rigidly following hard and fast rules and throwing rule books around whenever there is a disagreement, rather than taking each consensus as it comes, you really might not be suited to this endeavour. Only you can decide. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * but I disagree to some of your comments in the paragraph such as, 'failing to do that when people offered critique of the article, and tried to offer some guidelines to you' and we have not ' got somewhere constructively '. there are wilder, silent ordinances of the episode (Internet) who will give their opinions on the issues in their ways. Also, you should really be the one to pay attention to civil issues. All pages have the detail of you accusing my good faith editing as spamming and Vandalism for so many times. Wikipedia community is part of the world community, there are consensus on issues among all humans. There are outside values need to be respected.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You posted dozens of inappropriate links to the new article all over the place, and when asked to stop doing it by several people and having had the reasons explained to you, you simply ignored us and carried on - several times. It certainly looked like blatant POV-pushing, and I think most people would not see the word "spamming" as being out of place. And if you might be able to technically avoid the "vandalism" label (which I will accept), your editing has certainly been disruptive and tendentious. I maintain that if you had adopted a more constructive and less combative attitude and not taken the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" approach whenever anyone disagreed with you, we really wouldn't have reached this current state. So I really would exhort you to listen to what people are saying here and try to be cooperative - as an example, it really shouldn't have taken three reversions, three warnings, and a block to get you to stop removing other people's comments from the AfD. So, how about we try to move forward more positively? I'll accept that everything you have tried to do has been in good faith (though, I think, a lot of it has been misguided), and you accept that community consensus is the way we operate here and you agree to listen to what other people say and avoid getting into edit/revert/repeat wars? Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarek beat me to is in decline the above, so I will copy my rationale here: it also says "violating any other policy or guideline" which you did by removing fair comments by other users because they contradict or conflict with your intentions, i.e. this, this (it's not harrassment, it is a statement) and other disruptive edits. For a host of other reasons, please see the other unblock request declines, and serve out your time. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? I think not
Regarding this edit, reverting my removal of your off topic material? where was the COI (claimed by you in the edit summary) on my part? I can clearly see COI on your part, as your entire wikipedia career has been spent trying to insert (or prevent deletion of) material for http://www.mindinganimals.com, but as I have never had any dealings (other than removing your non notable insertions from Wikipedia articles) with this organization, I can NOT see how you can claim COI on my part! Please refrain from using such abject untruths and obfuscations in your future edit summaries. Wuh Wuz  Dat  01:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)