User talk:Witotiwo

My position

I don't agree to put too much trivial content in the page.
Trivial content can create dyslexia and can't find really important content. Encyclopedia should be easy to read and easy to understand.--Witotiwo (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Witotiwo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Witotiwo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia!

Secondly, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to remove unhelpful content – I wholeheartedly agree that navigability and readability are often sacrificed because no one gets rid of near-useless information.

Also, I'm sorry if it seemed like I'd snuck up on you by undoing changes you'd made. I promise you I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I can see that on the whole what you're doing is really good and your judgement is also very good. There are just one or two general points I thought I'd recommend:

  1. I noticed that a lot of your edits involve Categories. Personally, I would try to ignore Categories entirely, even if they're contentious. I promise no one has ever been influenced or informed by what category an article was placed in on Wikipedia. Fact-checking and simplifying make much more of an impact.

    For the record, even for "contentious labels", a partial or tangential relationship can justify inclusion in a category, as long as it's well sourced and doesn't read like an accusation; the Xinjiang conflict undeniably relates to the Category:Terrorism in China in part, and if the Turkistan Islamic Party isn't in there then what is?

  2. Just because something is unreferenced, doesn't mean it's wrong. Unless you think the information is worthless even if true (which is maybe more often the case), then you should try to check it before you remove it. (If you plan to take out a lot, maybe skim it in case there's anything that someone might find valuable or interesting.) Google the main words, click the first few links, Ctrl-F for whatever you're looking for. My go-to after that, particularly for obscurer things, is the same process on Google Books. If you haven't cited things before there's a good tutorial for it. For me, getting to the bottom of things, becoming an expert in some tiny thing you didn't know existed a moment ago is the most fun bit of Wikipedia. If you've made an effort and can't find anything, then go ahead and delete it.

Anyway, feel free to ignore my advice, I won't bother you again, but keep up the good work. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Witotiwo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

pattern of hounding?I can't understand the detailed reason for the block.This makes me confused. This means that the person who blocked me thinks that I caught the socks correctly, so I am also a sock?Also, do I have any errors or troubles in editing?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:00, 31 October 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.

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).

Witotiwo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Ivanvector:pattern of hounding?I can't understand the detailed reason for the block.This makes me confused. This means that the person who blocked me thinks that I caught the socks correctly, so I am also a sock?Also, do I have any errors or troubles in editing? I need further explanation. At least so far I can't see the rationality of this block.

Decline reason:

As you are aware (for you quoted the investigation page), the specific allegation here is that you have edited from multiple accounts. You need to address that allegation in any subsequent unblock request – by showing how you are not the person alleged, or by explaining why you acted as you did. AGK ■ 22:30, 31 October 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.

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).

Witotiwo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you ask me to answer a question, you must let me know what the problem is. But now no one tells me what the problem is.My understanding is that you think I found socks, so you think I am a sock.If so, I can't give any explanation at all because you are being assumed that I am doing bad things.(See WP:AFG)But I didn't do bad things, at least no one told me what bad things I did.@Ivanvector:pattern of hounding?I can't understand the detailed reason for the block.This makes me confused. This means that the person who blocked me thinks that I caught the socks correctly, so I am also a sock?Also, do I have any errors or troubles in editing? I need further explanation. At least so far I can't see the rationality of this block.If no one can try to tell me where the problem is, I will always use this template until I get an explanation that I can understand.

Decline reason:

You have been told clearly, several times, that you are blocked for the misuse of multiple accounts - ie socking. Yet you are still asking why you are blocked? In your next unblock request, please directly address the socking allegation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 1 November 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.

Ready to enter semi-retirement or retirement

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).

Witotiwo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I saw that the reason you think I am a sock is that I caught the socks, which is unreasonable.In addition, I have left my own editorial reason on any page to fully explain my rationality. It is also unreasonable to interpret my editor as evidence of abuse of an account. Finally, I don't think my editor has any harm to the wiki. I also promise that my editor will not be harmful to the wiki in the future. If you can't provide evidence that my editors so far are harmful, I think you should cancel these wrong blocking operations. Regardless of your decision, I will continue to use my way to contribute to the wiki and help the wiki. I will not use this account to make any requests.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 15:14, 19 November 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.

Sorry,sir ! You may think that you explained it very clearly, but I am still confused. in a different case? Anyway, I am planning to go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/ to request something. PS:I think that using any way, as long as you can catch socks is a good way.Is this wrong? Is this what you mean?@Boing! said Zebedee:--Witotiwo (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "caught the socks". Where was that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee:Where ? Check the CIDR of the suspect IP, edit history in 7 days, edit summary.Check the edit history of the relevant page to find out who made the same edit. Or check the clues provided by the relevant page.So what is the problem with this?In addition, I will check the editing time. If the time difference is less than 10 minutes.I am going to find an example for you to see about editing time.
  • 20:44, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-12)‎ Military education and training in China ‎2600:387:6:807::55 (talk) ‎ (Undid revision 865348770 by 180.204.0.235 (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
  • 20:43, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-4)‎ Battle of Changsha (1942) ‎ (→‎Battle: If it doesn't have a page, it shouldn't be linked.)
  • 20:42, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+1)‎ Battle of Changsha (1942) ‎
  • 20:42, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+15)‎ Battle of Changsha (1942) ‎
  • 20:41, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-23)‎ Donghua University ‎ (→‎History: Already has [citation needed] tag at bottom)
  • 20:39, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-3,513)‎ Chinese nationalism ‎ (Too many unsourced claims in this section, and is already repeated in the "main" article "Sinocentrism")
  • 20:36, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-225)‎ Human rights in China ‎2600:387:6:807::55 (talk) ‎ (reverting edits by long term vandal)
  • 20:34, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ Battle of the Paracel Islands ‎2600:387:6:807::95 (talk) ‎
My other feature is to check the relevant account of the page I edited. Like this example of editing time, the page I edited is Donghua University.--Witotiwo (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you have completely lost me and I have no idea what you're talking about now - I really have no idea how this relates to your assertion that you are thought to be a sock because you "caught the socks". Maybe there's a language/translation problem between us? The Sockpuppetry case which led to your block is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O1lI0/Archive, and that is what you need to address. I'm leaving this now, and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]