Hello, Fauzty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you only said your blocking,and don't said anything when the topic was not your blocking,if not,you not unblock into zh.wiki.--MCC214 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to request an "article for deletion" in the first place. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page. According to deletion policy, if in doubt, don't delete. I have no intention to go back to zh wikipedia as long as they don't EVEN TRY to follow their deletion policy and protection policy. They don't follow the policy AT ALL.--Fauzty (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. But deletion policy can said deletion reason is crystal,and you don't give some resources,also you need to resolved the problem, if in doubt, please take it in DRV after you unblock and not your talk page.--MCC214 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page WP:Miscellany for Deletion in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You posted a reply in English, which is good, and a reply in Chinese, which is not helpful and not appropriate.Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
「User:Alex Shih竟拒絕承認此一「簡單查證即可獲得理解」的基本事實，而對本人施加所謂的「封禁」。此一施加封禁的惡劣行徑，已經證明User:Alex Shih阻止我自己本人為自己申明基本事實。本人所寫的文章，本人可以作出解答。而User:Alex Shih此一封禁之目的，在於阻止本人對自己所寫的文章作出本人的權威性解釋，意圖阻止「來自作者的說明」，意圖製造「缺席審判」（trial in absentia）。此項禁止自己本人為自己作出解釋的行徑，亦已經違反維基百科方針」的粗字就已經違反任何維基百科方針，您如果認為所有人是錯，只有您是對，那對不起，維基並不適合您去編輯，也容不下您。--MCC214Talk with me#Contributions with me10:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider my intention to be achieve an unblock. I am here because there is a nomination for my sandbox, and I do not think I have no word to say. It's my sandbox and I can explain what happen to my sandbox, but they would not let me, it's a sandbox of my user page and I am the very person, do I? If they were saying something like "you don't have to say anything because it's not related to you", then, I might not say anything at all. First, I explain what the text of sandbox is, or what I consider it would be, but they simply have no intention to explain what they think! --Fauzty (talk)
a pity
Hi, User:Godsy, User:Robert McClenon, as someone in the MfD refuses to admit that THERE ARE those academic papers, angrily he refuses to hear from the author (which is me), and what the author thinking of the sandbox. Due to technical restriction, I am afraid that I might not be able to join the discuss of my sandbox. That's very ridiculous. This behavior is what we call a "trial in absentia". Anyway. Thank you for your participating in the discussion. Best regard.--Fauzty (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you have said both at the MFD and here has no semantic meaning. I do not know or care whether it is because you cannot write coherent English (the most likely explanation), or because you cannot think coherently (but Wikipedia policy cautions against casting aspersions), or whether you are deliberately posting nonsense in order to confuse us. Your posts do not make sense in English. That is reason enough for your block. Try appealing your block in English, but only if you can write in English. If you cannot or will not write in English, you should be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really. I do make sense, and academic papers are important. The existence of the academic papers is of course important. --Fauzty (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disruptive editing. I only edit main-namespace article once in this month. User:Alex Shih should formally apologize to me. If you insist there is a disruptive editing, you should specify where did it happen. Alex shouldn't avoid answering this question.--Fauzty (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that there is a disruptive editing is baseless, because I did not edit a main-namespace Wikipedia article. If there is no editing, where is the so-called disruptive editing? Baseless. User:Alex Shih should apologize.--Fauzty (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disruptive editing. This is verifiable. No such a thing. Nothing (in the main-namespace) did I write. Alex just want to demonize a regular user like me. A regular user who even did not edit recently. When asked about further details of the so-called disruptive editing, Alex just used a block to reply. --Fauzty (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
August 2018
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
When asked about "no tolerance of what?" User:Alex Shih refuses to answer. When asked about "where is the part of the sandbox text do you consider not complying to the policy?" User:Alex Shih using block to refuse to answer. Clear violation of the WP:blocking policy.
Why editing a personal sandbox even constitutes a indefinite block? User:Alex Shih still refuses to explain even when asked.
What he accused simply does not exist at all. He does not provide any reviewable evidence, but according to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, he should provide.
According to WP:ADMINACCT, Alex should answer a proper question. If he refuses to answer, then he must also provide a good reason to refuse to answer. "Administrators are expected to respond promptly... to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions." Apparently, there is no disruptive editing. Alex make it up entirely. There is no such thing. What he call a disruptive editing did not happen at all, because I didn't even edit a (main-namespace) Wikipedia article apart from one article. Alex can't specify where and when did it happen. Because it didn't happen in the first place. If Alex insist there is a disruptive editing, he should be able to answer the question: where?
When asked about further details of the so-called disruptive editing, Alex just used a block to reply. This is not a acceptable situation in accordance with the policy.
Decline reason:
Since you say this is not a language issue, I have to conclude you're being deliberately disingenuous by ignoring others' arguments and the content of your own sandboxes. There may be some academic papers there, but there's also lots of content that isn't relevant to any academic papers, government systems, or the English Wikipedia. Alex Shih warned you about denying the obvious; you continued. Huon (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I do not consider, I do not think this is particularly a language issue. Basically there is no argument. The person who implemented the block simply does not reply, does not explain.--Fauzty (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject argues that there is no disruptive editing. However, we can see above that the subject has been adding large amounts of text in a language that is probably Chinese, and in any case is not written in the Roman alphabet and is not in English. This is the English Wikipedia, and arguing other than in English is disruptive in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The existence of the academic papers is not important. " said by Robert. You see things as such. I am frustrated, really. I am explaining, and you just do not want the thing to be explained by anyone. Is not the purpose of the MfD trying to figure out what those pages are?--Fauzty (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existence and status of any academic papers is relevant to their own domain. It is not relevant to your block, which is due to disruptive editing. The posting in what appears to be Chinese is disruptive in itself. The existence and status of the academic papers is also not relevant to the deletion of the sandbox. If the academic papers are your own, there are also questions of original research and conflict of interest. However, the discussion of the sandbox is not about the papers, unless you are using the sandbox to conduct a discussion in Chinese, which is inappropriate for English Wikipedia pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, @Anthony Bradbury:, @Huon:, I've never said the is NOT A LANGUAGE ISSUE, what I said is what MCC214 said is not particularly a language issue because he/she (MCC214) did not have a argument. I was stating, I am replying, I am the person who replies, and User:Huon use this to against me? This is getting ridiculous. Enough is enough. This is enough.--Fauzty (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Denial of the fact about the page creation date, denial of the existance of refereces of academic papers, this is ridiculous. --Fauzty (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewable evidence? Alex Shih warned you about denying the obvious: That your sandboxes on the English Wikipedia were related to some dispute on the Chinese Wikipedia and largely were not collections of sources meant to improve the English Wikipedia. And here you bring up the academic papers again while completely ignoring everything else that's in your sandboxes. That's the disingenuity Alex Shih explicitly warned you about and which saw you blocked, as Alex Shih explained here.
Also, you did create Sandbox 03 at a time when you were indefinitely blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia without talk page access. Your othersandboxes were created on January 15 and January 25, respectively, when you were also blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia without talk page access, though not indefinitely at that time. So Alex Shih might have been slightly wrong regarding the timeline, but I find your arguments something between misleading and outright false. The central point isn't whether you were temporarily or indefinitely blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia when you created your sandboxes; what matters is that you're using the English Wikipedia as a space to circumvent your blocks on the Chinese Wikipedia and to continue disputes that originate there.
Also, if you wish to claim that this is a language issue, that won't help you get unblocked. Some basic competence is required to successfully contribute to Wikipedia, and if your command of English is so bad that your missleading or false statements were made due to language issues, then you lack that basic compentence and should remain blocked to avoid further disruption of the project. Huon (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
