User talk:Ulysses Faye Ohkiph
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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
1) Your edits are in violation of Wikipedia policy at WP:MOSMAC. 2) Modern Macedonia has nothing to do with the article Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Cease your edit warring and trying to push your nationalist POV or else your editing privileges may be blocked. --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015[edit]
Please make an effort to calmly approach any differences you may be having with other editors. This edit summary and this talk page message are simply unhelpful as well as insulting. Please be more careful. Tiderolls 14:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
October 2015[edit]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
May 2017[edit]
Hello, I'm ExplodingPoPUps. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
By the way, why Chinese characters is included in languages and also there is no Chinese script link showing on what you did on Kyrgyz language. ExplodingPoPUps 22:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
November 2017[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at National Anthem of the Sakha Republic. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Scr★pIronIV 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- reply User:ScrapIronIV: He is a sock. Not Watson, but the Cyrillic Chubuevo. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- A sock of whom? Diabedia? I’m curious to know. Zombie Dragon (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- reply User:ScrapIronIV: He is a sock. Not Watson, but the Cyrillic Chubuevo. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
December 2017[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい 18:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Firstly, my version was kept for years, in my opinion, User:JohnBlackburne is the edit war starter;
Secondly, the anthem of Republic of China belongs to ALL CHINESE people,(not only Taiwan) and should not be regarded as a "name problem".
Finally, the user User:JohnBlackburne use his prejudice to see Chinese things, I think the prejudice can be fixed, but he didn't do that. Is Wikipedia racist? Can he define Chinese-related things without knowing Chinese culture?Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not addressed any of these issues in this unblock request, but have simply continued your content dispute and your personal attacks, and this is not the place for that - you need to discuss the content dispute on the talk page (as I say, in a civil and friendly way, and accept whatever consensus emerges) if and after you can make an acceptable unblock request. This is the place to address your unacceptable conduct only, so please think seriously about that before you make a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
@Boing! said Zebedee: Ok sir. Actually as I have said above, I'm a Chinese native speaker, have used extremely inappropriate word like "villain" (actually I do not know how to present the meaning like "law-breakers accuse other person first" in English, so I googled a slang sentence for that) or "racist", and many words should be better. I should admit that both my attitude and my English writing skill. You've pointed out a very serious problem of me, not only as a Wikipedia user, but as a person. Thanks a million for that, and I should present my regret again, also to John.
(This paragraph is about the template itself, if admins thinks it unhelpful you can skip that, thanks:) )What's more, the advocating on relationship between Taiwan and China I've already written in the talk page. Taiwan must be written as China in the aspect of history, and governmental symbols (like flag, anthem, constitution, presidents, etc.. But things which may not be written in Constitution, like Capital, you can freely refer to Taipei, for reasons like Nanjing is the ROC's original capital, in these topics I even prefer to use "Taiwan" instead of "Rep. China"). That is because the anthem represents/ed all China in Mainland China before 1949, in UN before 1971, and in countries like Paraguay, the Holy See even now. Taiwan may be a cultural concept, but never a political concept. You cannot find even one TAIWAN (in the basic frame, a.k.a. using it to refer the Taiwan government itself) in official files of ROC government. I can easily to get over the disambiguation by both list it in the groups of Current and Historical anthems, and noted the latter with "China, 1912-49". But for the reasons I've mentioned above (ROC Gov't still represents China even today), this should not be used. So I don't have any POVs to current Mainland China Government or the Rep. China Government, but only the current condition of the two legal gov't in China. And it's not a naming problem. Admins can see the history of the template, I am indeed the long-period watcher of it... And the fundamental infrastructure (or frame? Sorry my English is a little poor) of the template is written by myself. Yes, I swear that I'm not willing to engage in any edit warring, and now I will accuse people who did this first.
Finally I have to say that I am actually modest in Wikipedia. As you can see, although my name is still red (that is because of my sociophobia) , I registered many years ago, and mainly fix my attention on Chinese version, for only there I can write things accurately. The editions of me in English version is mainly on templates, misspells, and Chinese-related things. I do not want to break the reading experience for people all over the world due to my poor English expression... To define people, you should see what they did, but not an impulse. I ought to apologize again for being impetuous.
I beg your pardon, to everyone I have offended. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am unconvinced. As I work primarily with Chinese/Taiwanese topics, this is not about what is true or what is not. This is about WP:COMMONNAME being a policy, and that's the standard we go by. If you cannot demonstrate understanding of a simple policy, then I am afraid you may not have the competence required to edit English Wikipedia. Alex Shih (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had tried to connect the admin user:Alex Shih above, but cannot get his response. So what I can only do is to add the unblock template again. I wish admins do not regard my requests as too often, because if I do not present the request, no one wanna communicate with me. Other things I have told above in other refused requests, I do not want to harm the experience of admins, so pardon me for not type them again, thanks.
In this part I only need to say about Taiwan.
Things below is what I originally want to communicate with admin User:Alex Shih, and now for every East Asia-born Wikipedia admins:
Please see how the template was formed in Chinese version of these things. The reason for The Republic of China is not only for China Mainlanders or Taiwan citizens, or even Kinmen Matsu HK Macau residents. It's for all Chinese people living all over the world. As I know, due to Taiwan government's high efficiency cultural output from the end of Chiang Ching-kuo era to the start of Chen Shui-bian era, people in SE Asia like Malaysia and Indonesia, they regard China as the now "Greater China", BUT because of the hate emotion to Commies, they prefer to admit the national symbol of Republic of China as the whole China. The reason I mark the editor as "racist" is just because that "Western Centrism". Indeed, the word "racist" is improper.
But the common name is for general concept, civilian or cultural concept (just like "Railway in Taiwan" "Airlines of Taiwan" "Currencies of Taiwan" and even "Capital of Taiwan" for the capital of Taiwan has never been changed in civilized era, and Chiang Kai-Shek's Gov't was already in Taipei as the PRC established), but not for the accurate concept, especially national symbols. For example, now if you tell something about "Taiwanese Flag" or "台灣旗" to SE Asia people, they may refer them to green flags derived from the Democratic Progressive Party Flag. English is spoken by people all over the world, just like Philippines and Singapore. So in these topics about national symbols, ROC should not be replaced by Taiwan. If you are teaching Westerners about Chinese-related topics. Whether Taiwan or ROC is all right, even Taiwan is more proper. BUT if there are other Eastern world people here, you should not use this. That's what I mean about "Western-centrism". If the policy is suitable in this concept, I only have to say, the object for the adjective "Western centrist" is not able to use on an exact people, it should be used to describe the policy itself. However, there is no unchangeable policy, the policy is too biased, too unfriendly to Eastern people. TRUTH IS TRUTH. PREJUDICE SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED IN THE NAME OF "COMMON NAME". For example, Nagorno-Karabakh is no doubt a more common name than "Artsakh". (In Chinese Version Nagorno-Karabakh is still the title of many articles now, but that is because they have still not provide an official Chinese name translation for the Artsakh, and the name "N-K" still have the official status in both Artsakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan, use "N-K", rather than "Artsakh", in more cases, is better for its neutrality. That is too much different from the century-old state Republic of China) But in Wikipedia you insists to use Artsakh, is that double-standarded?
What's more, I do not want to unblock until you can talk to me about this thing more deeply. That's because I'm friendly indeed. And, if which admins know Chinese, you can say it in Chinese to describe the problem more concisely.:) Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That's enough of this. If your next unblock request doesn't comply with WP:GAB, your access to this talk page will be removed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
@Jpgordon:It seems that need to submit my reason again.
Actually I'm a Chinese native speaker, have used extremely inappropriate word like "villain" (actually I do not know how to present the meaning like "law-breakers accuse other person first" in English, so I googled a slang sentence for that) or "racist", and many words should be better. I should admit that both my attitude and my English writing skill. You've pointed out a very serious problem of me, not only as a Wikipedia user, but as a person. Thanks a million for that, and I should present my regret again, also to John.
What's more, I had already learned to deal with controversies more "by Wikipedia way". I will abandon the bad editing habit.
Finally I have to say that I am actually modest in Wikipedia. As you can see, although my name is still red (that is because of my sociophobia) , I registered many years ago, and mainly fix my attention on Chinese version, for only there I can write things accurately. The editions of me in English version is mainly on templates, misspells, and Chinese-related things. I do not want to break the reading experience for people all over the world due to my poor English expression... To define people, you should see what they did, but not an impulse. I ought to apologize again for being impetuous.
I beg your pardon, to everyone I have offended. I think that this is the reason for blocking me, right? I should take care of this from now on. This is my first blocking experience, I think an infinite one is too harsh for the first. I beg for another chance. As for the long explanation above, if you read my talk page then you may know, an admin insisted that I should deliver my POV on it. Though according to WP:GAB it is not welcomed, which I had already known, so sorry about that. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There are two reasons for this block: Personal attacks, and disruptive editing. I'm not happy with your comments on either. It's quite obvious that you don't understand WP:COMMONNAME and would continue to push a point of view in violation of that policy. Regarding the personal attacks (such as "RACIST"), your explanations fall even more short. Possibly that's a language issue; in that case you'll be more successful at the Chinese Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm confused.
One admin think my request is too long (the 3rd admin above); another one think that "your explanations fall even more short". So is it exactly too long or too short? Could you please tell me how it should be? 150-200 words? 5-8 sentences? Or some other standards? If you thought that was too short, you can easily see my talk page, and find a longer apology...
I think if you are wrong, admit it; apologize for it; fix the harmful situation (if there is any) up; then never commit that again. If you order me to give a reason to explain, the only one I can use is "language problem". What's more, I initially used "my poor English" to describe the word "VILLAIN", which is a improper words but is in a slang English phrase I googled, not to describe the word "Racist", for this word I have nothing to explain, I know that it's completely wrong) Still, I do not like this reason, even you order me to deliver one.
As for "In that case you'll be more successful at the Chinese Wikipedia"... I don't think I need this "case". When a wrong incident happens, I think there should be no explanation but only promises. For the "promise", I've promised not to JUDGE other people again, no matter by using what kind of word, even not only "attacking or offensive" words, because that different people may feel offended when described with different adjectives. I know that I should give my opinions for the things, but not the people from now on. And I delivered my regret to not only John, the one I had the conflict with, (by @ and mentioned his ID many times, please see my talk page first, in the 2nd request) but also to the potential object that who have not realized, or not directly argued with me.
I have delivered this to everyone many times. Someone said the apology was too long, thus I deleted the retailed words in the last request; but oppositely, someone told me the request is too short. Is that a controversy? I don't know who will see this request, different people have their own standards, and I have no concept it is too long or to short. Please tell me how long it is proper, or please let one admin deal my problem for a continuing process, then that will be no controversies? That's what I mean. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Well, you certainly can write. It's a shame I cannot unblock you. Once again, you have not affirmed understanding the reason for your block and have not affirmed a cessation of the behavior that led to your block. The right amount of words is the least that meet those two requirements convincingly. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- "Your explanations fall short" is a figure of speech. It doesn't mean "your explanations were not long enough" but "they were not convincing". Huon (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
@Dlohcierekim: sir, I have acknowledged and am sincerely regretful for the disruptive editing, and the labeling of other people (like RACIST or VILLAIN I've committed as attacking). I know the latter one is the most important reason, and never do these again. Accumulating words is senseless, I just promise this time.
What's more, in the "duration" section of WP:BP, "Administrators should consider: whether the user has engaged in that behavior before." I have not committed this even once before. Assume that I commit it a second time, you can directly block me from all pages of this site besides my talk page.
(To make you more convinced, I think I can show more evidence to make you ensure that: if you can please just scroll to the top of my talk page, there's a "linguist" labeled me as "(maybe pan-Macedonian) nationalism" just for I added an link to "Republic of Macedonia" in the article "Macedonia"... And even threatened to block me. As you know I'm actually a Chinese, how can I be a pan-Macedonian... What's more, the link of Republic of Macedonia now is added to the article for a long time, which proved that my initial edition is not so bad. That made the label more ridiculous... So you can see that everything can make me not to label people even once from now on. If it won't be offensive, it still can be ridiculous.)
I think the unconvincing feeling of you may be that the detailed word I used in the unblock requests are not so accurate because I'm not an English speaker, all English skills I'm good at is just to write my course essay in college... So pardon me about this please, or teach me Which words I should write is more proper. In China, there's a phrase: "A teacher of one word" means that even you help me fix a word in expression, you are my teacher for life.
And I wanna say thanks to Huon and Dlohcierekim again, for that only you two gentlemen/ladies reviewed my communicating request in my talk page. Thank you all. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Considering your response to Huon was to engage in an ethnic stereotype, I think we're done here. I've also revoked TPA. You can use WP:UTRS to appeal in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- "Administrators should consider: whether the user has engaged in that behavior before." - You mean we should consider whether you previously engaged in personal attacks, as you did here, here, here? Huon (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon:For the edition long ago, you should block me at that time, that should be "the first". 3 years is enough for people to have a completely mental change. On the contrary, if you blocked me then, the disruptive editing of the template in last December may not be happened. "First" only means the first block, that should not be permanent, and will be a warning of the attacker. After all, "Taivo" sir did not even accuse me as attacking, so that I did not realized then... I should pay my regret to him/her now.
I know you Germans are almost the most righteous people in the world, even deleted the first & second stances of Deutschlandlied. You cannot stand the bad bahavior at all, especially about racial and humanity. I really admire that, so please allow me to say sorry to you again. "Cultural colonist" and "racist" is the same meaning of the word "racist" this time, which I have already regretted. Despite this, your first accuse of the three is not an attack, for Nursultan Nazarbayev changed the Kazakh latinization of Kazakh language, and the editor REALLY do not know when reversing some text in Kazakh. He has a plenty kinds of reason (such as "copyright", "wikipedia policy", and even "too long"... But all them are not adequate) on deleting lyrics and its transliteration of Central Asian national anthems, which is completely legal. Don't you think this site should delete planty of legal text without limitation?
But all these above are not important. Cowards and idiots always have excuses. If I committed something bad I should only promise. I've said that "if I committed again, you must instantly block my editing access of all pages", as you already gave me the chance to promise, I can only promise like that. You can regard it as a treaty or agreement, or an ultimatum for me. I beg your pardon sincerely. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)