User talk:LungZeno/en
original[编辑]
{{unblock|1= Thank for reply.
The sentence means that the edit is not vandal and is not a action of socking.
My expression may be not good. Later sentence means why I apply the process of unblocking.
I don't know what the "technically likely" depend on.
And I don't know he and how he is, I don't know how to appeal the block if I am felt that my behavior is similar to him.
I think that my behaviors are normal in the persons I know, except my bad ability of English.
--LungZeno (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
On the page User_talk:LungZeno#Sockpuppet, Nowa says that my edits and the edits of the banned user are primarily different (diff). On the page Talk:List_of_metro_systems#How_do_you_group_Hong_Kong_when_it's_still_a_british_colony and the page User_talk:LungZeno, as the knowledge I and my witnesses provided, putting Hong Kong and PRC in same column is normal behavior of Hong Kong people by common knowledge. It is not a distinctive behavior of the banned user. In this case of conflict edits, I seek to resolve the conflict at the start time and joined the discussion of solutions to make consensus during the whole course. By what RTG wrote on the page Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood, the banned user was a event of many many years ago and nobody has identified them in a long time (diff). The assertion of the accusation appear imprecise. They are the evidences that I am not the banned user and my account is not a sockpuppet of the banned user.
In that time, Rob984 said that I do not need to disprove this false accusation. Therefore, I did not defend at that time.
In the course of this incident, I know that there are other editors who change field to "Hong Kong", "Hong Kong SAR", "Hong Kong, China" etc. Although edit war is considered as vandalism and is prohibited, the way to change to those is itself to bring the information more in line with common factual knowledge. Mere it is not vandalism. During the whole course of resolving the conflict and discussing to make consensus, my conclusions all base on factual knowledge and correct reasoning, I did not ever considered that I am the Wikiepdia, and I did not ever place my favorite over the aims of Wikipedia.
But, during the whole course, Ryulong repeatedly express that I and my witness has no right varying on many reasons, but no reasons about improving Wikipedia. As what RTG wrote on the page Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood, the behavior of Ryulong is not a way of collaboration from beginning to end. And Ryulong hindered from making consensus to let the article is evolved to be more in line with common factual knowledge and/or avoid conflict of edits. Opinion without knowledge and logic is opinion simply. Ryulong reverts edits of me and my witness for non-article pages with unfounded accusation many times. Therefore, pure opinions being said by Ryulong is suspicious.
--~~~~
}}
During the course of finding diffs, I have found that, many times, Ryulong did not just revert the edits of me and my witness for non-article pages with irrelevant accusation and not providing evidence or proof at first time, Ryulong also did it of other editor. The revertings are diff no. 1, diff no. 2, diff no. 3, diff no. 4, diff no. 5, diff no. 6. Diff no. 1 and Diff no. 2 are for me on the page of other space and talk page of my user space respectively. Diff no. 3 and Diff no. 4 are for my witnesses on talk page of my user space. Diff no. 5 is for my witness on other talk page. Diff no. 6 is for other editor on other talk page. The edit summary of diff no. 2 is "I am done talking to a banned user's sockpuppet". As a edit summary for removing my edits, it is odd. Those edits are not vandalism. Before first judgement of checkuser, Ryulong had already said that I is the sockpuppet of the banned users on many pages. And also, I just regularly interacted with other editors from beginning to end. After diff no. 1 and diff no. 2, I pointed out that the accusation is unfounded. But, after interacting on diff no. a, Ryulong did diff no. 4 and reverted without any reason on diff no. 3 and diff no. 5. Revertings in diff no. 3, 4, 5 are also done before any judgment of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood about those accusation. And what Ryulong accused in the edit summary on those is irrelevant to the topic talked on diff no. 1 to 6 respectively. But, on diff no. 3, 4, 5, my witnesses testified the factual knowledge against the accusation that Ryulong is the accuser. On diff no. 1, 2, 6, the problematic behaviors of Ryulong were written or showed. These behaviors of Ryulong are suspicious about conflict of interest or gaming the system.
Not only one times Ryulong used the out-dated history of China as the argument point of the article(diff, diff). It is odd. The information on the article attracting conflict is not historical information. Normally, such as these articles are evolved to be according to knowledge of status quo. These are contradiction.
During the course of talking about the conflict of the article, many times on different pages, Ryulong claimed who opposite side is or what opposite side has, (e.g. nationality, banned user, nationalist, individuality, meatpuppet), and used these claim as reasons of accepting the argument point supporting what he wish to do on the article or reason of rejecting opposite side from participating. (diff of 13:32, 25 August, diff of 15:22, 24 August, diff of 15:24, 24 August, diff of 16:35, 25 August, diff of 09:08, 26 August, diff of 12:44, 25 August, diff of 03:57, 27 August, diff of 09:46, 31 August, diff of 18:01, 24 August, diff of 12:53, 31 August, diff of 13:30, 1 September) And Ryulong usually did not clarify the words of these claims, did not show how relevant. What Ryulong wrote did not show that he considered these claim as personal attack. But in his last reply, he considered what I wrote as personal attack. It is suspicious that the standard of Ryulong has self-contradiction.
Therefore, it is suspicious that his requests of Sockpuppet investigations is gaming the system.
email[编辑]
Dear Ban Appeals Subcommittee, The infinite block is about sockpuppet of a banned user. But he is not I. This block is a mistake. On-wiki discussions relevant to my block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LungZeno https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_metro_systems#How_do_you_group_Hong_Kong_when_it.27s_still_a_british_colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood&oldid=623066342 "anything else you wish us to consider during your appeal": My English is poor. Appeal: What the accuser Ryulong provided just is diff of a edit and account creation year information. The date of account creation information just is coincidence. I only use one account name in any language of Wikipedia. On the page [[User_talk:LungZeno#Sockpuppet]], Nowa says that my edits and the edits of the banned user are primarily different (diff of what Nowa said: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALungZeno&diff=623479244&oldid=623477096 ). The edit is just one times. The edit is too small and minor to judge who did it. On the page [[Talk:List_of_metro_systems#How_do_you_group_Hong_Kong_when_it's_still_a_british_colony]] and the page [[User_talk:LungZeno]], as the knowledge I and my witnesses provided, putting Hong Kong and PRC in same column is normal behavior of Hong Kong people by common knowledge. It is not a distinctive behavior of the banned user. In this case of conflict edits, I seek to resolve the conflict at the start time and joined the discussion of solutions to make consensus during the whole course. By what User:RTG wrote on the page [[Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood]], the banned user was a incident of many many years ago and nobody has identified them in a long time. The assertion of the accusation appear imprecise. (diff of what RTG wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood&diff=623570138 ) They are the evidences that I am not the banned user and my account is not a sockpuppet of the banned user. In that time, User:Rob984 said that I do not need to disprove this false accusation. Therefore, I did not defend at that time. In the course of this incident, I know that there are other editors who change field to "Hong Kong", "Hong Kong SAR", "Hong Kong, China" etc. Although edit war is considered as vandalism and is prohibited, the way to change to those is itself to bring the information more in line with common factual knowledge. Mere it is not vandalism. During the whole course of resolving the conflict and discussing to make consensus, my conclusions all base on factual knowledge and correct reasoning, I did not ever considered that I am the Wikiepdia, and I did not ever place my favorite over the aims of Wikipedia. But, during the whole course, Ryulong repeatedly express that I and my witness has no right varying on many reasons (even including "Wikipedia is a privately owned website"), but no reasons about improving Wikipedia. As what RTG wrote on the page [[Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood]], the behavior of Ryulong is not a way of collaboration from beginning to end. And Ryulong hindered from making consensus to let the article is evolved to be more in line with common factual knowledge and/or avoid conflict of edits. Opinion without knowledge and logic is opinion simply. Ryulong reverts edits of me and my witness for non-article pages with unfounded accusation many times. Therefore, pure opinions being said by Ryulong is suspicious. (diff of "Wikipedia is a privately owned website": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALungZeno&diff=623735638&oldid=623730480 , another diff of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALungZeno&diff=622614249&oldid=622613756 ) Further, the requests of Sockpuppet investigations is suspicious that it is unfair. During the course of finding diffs, I have found that, many times, Ryulong did not just revert the edits of me and my witness for non-article pages with irrelevant accusation and not providing evidence or proof at first time, Ryulong also did it of other editor. The revertings are diff no. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=622645954 , diff no. 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LungZeno&diff=prev&oldid=622761901 , diff no. 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LungZeno&diff=prev&oldid=623339853 , diff no. 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LungZeno&diff=prev&oldid=623412019 , diff no. 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&diff=next&oldid=623337673 , diff no. 6: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FInstantnood&diff=623867389&oldid=623862097 . Diff no. 1 and Diff no. 2 are for me on the page of other space and talk page of my user space respectively. Diff no. 3 and Diff no. 4 are for my witnesses on talk page of my user space. Diff no. 5 is for my witness on other talk page. Diff no. 6 is for other editor on other talk page. The edit summary of diff no. 2 is "I am done talking to a banned user's sockpuppet". As a edit summary for removing my edits, it is odd. Those edits are not vandalism. Before first judgement of checkuser, Ryulong had already said that I is the sockpuppet of the banned users on many pages. And also, I just regularly interacted with other editors from beginning to end. After diff no. 1 and diff no. 2, I pointed out that the accusation is unfounded. But, after interacting a period of time (evidence diff of interaction: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALungZeno&diff=622820378&oldid=622763379 ), Ryulong did diff no. 4 and reverted without any reason on diff no. 3 and diff no. 5. Revertings in diff no. 3, 4, 5 are also done before any judgment of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood]] about those accusation. And what Ryulong accused in the edit summary on those is irrelevant to the topic talked on diff no. 1 to 6 respectively. But, on diff no. 3, 4, 5, my witnesses testified the factual knowledge against the accusation that Ryulong is the accuser. On diff no. 1, 2, 6, the problematic behaviors of Ryulong were written or showed. These behaviors of Ryulong are suspicious about conflict of interest or gaming the system. Not only one times Ryulong used the out-dated history of China as the argument point of the article. It is odd. The information on the article attracting conflict is not historical information. Normally, such as these articles are evolved to be according to knowledge of status quo. These are contradiction. (diff of his history point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=623340380&oldid=623339406 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALungZeno&diff=623708238&oldid=623706570 ) During the course of talking about the conflict of the article, many times on different pages, Ryulong claimed who opposite side is or what opposite side has, (e.g. nationality, banned user, nationalist, individuality, meatpuppet), and used these claim as reasons of accepting the argument point supporting what he wish to do on the article or reason of rejecting opposite side from participating. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622740164&oldid=622738855 diff of 13:32, 25 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622611692&oldid=622611130 diff of 15:22, 24 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622611893&oldid=622611692 diff of 15:24, 24 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622761693&oldid=622761242 diff of 16:35, 25 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622859947&oldid=622825337 diff of 09:08, 26 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622735660&oldid=622735550 diff of 12:44, 25 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622975047&oldid=622962806 diff of 03:57, 27 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=623556228&oldid=623524917 diff of 09:46, 31 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=622630721&oldid=622621581 diff of 18:01, 24 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FInstantnood&diff=623570870&oldid=623570138 diff of 12:53, 31 August], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FInstantnood&diff=623706941&oldid=623698816 diff of 13:30, 1 September]) And Ryulong usually did not clarify the words of these claims, did not show how relevant. What Ryulong wrote did not show that he considered these claim as personal attack. But in his last reply, he considered what I wrote as personal attack. It is suspicious that the standard of Ryulong has self-contradiction. (His claim: diff of 13:32, 25 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622740164&oldid=622738855 , diff of 15:22, 24 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622611692&oldid=622611130 , diff of 15:24, 24 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622611893&oldid=622611692 , diff of 16:35, 25 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622761693&oldid=622761242 , diff of 09:08, 26 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622859947&oldid=622825337 , diff of 12:44, 25 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622735660&oldid=622735550 , diff of 03:57, 27 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=622975047&oldid=622962806 , diff of 09:46, 31 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_metro_systems&diff=623556228&oldid=623524917 , diff of 18:01, 24 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=622630721&oldid=622621581 , diff of 12:53, 31 August: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FInstantnood&diff=623570870&oldid=623570138 , diff of 13:30, 1 September: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FInstantnood&diff=623706941&oldid=623698816 ) Therefore, it is suspicious that his requests of Sockpuppet investigations is gaming the system.