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 ( ~~~~ ) 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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)
Username
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
- Add
{{unblock-un|your new username here}}on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page. - At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
- Add
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Template:Z12--Chaser (talk) 09:33, 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 ( ~~~~ ) 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 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. WuhWuzDat 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 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
Template:Z9 The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Thisisaniceusername reported by 64.53.165.54 (talk) (Result: 48h). 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)
Thisisaniceusername (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have not causing damaging to wikipedia. I contributed. I was accused for unfounded issues by other editors. And before my reverts, I already tried to talk the issue in AFD page, but those editors don't read things carefully. Already one editor has confirmed and verified my article do not have the claimed issues such as reliability and copyrights, pls see [[animal protection]]'s history, therefore I was just reverted destructive changes. And the article was changed back to earlier version. what I did just reverted unfounded charge. Also I have issue for block my previous account, I considered it was not a fair decision. I had this username youdontownwiki, You policy say people cannot use organization’s name, but wiki does not equal to Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki I had to create current username itsaniceusername in order to keep my contribution, I didn’t care this too much at the time so didn’t report, but I think it worth to mention it here. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not causing damaging to wikipedia. I contributed. I was accused for unfounded issues by other editors. And before my reverts, I already tried to talk the issue in AFD page, but those editors don't read things carefully. Already one editor has confirmed and verified my article do not have the claimed issues such as reliability and copyrights, pls see [[animal protection]]'s history, therefore I was just reverted destructive changes. And the article was changed back to earlier version. what I did just reverted unfounded charge. Also I have issue for block my previous account, I considered it was not a fair decision. I had this username youdontownwiki, You policy say people cannot use organization’s name, but wiki does not equal to Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki I had to create current username itsaniceusername in order to keep my contribution, I didn’t care this too much at the time so didn’t report, but I think it worth to mention it here. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not causing damaging to wikipedia. I contributed. I was accused for unfounded issues by other editors. And before my reverts, I already tried to talk the issue in AFD page, but those editors don't read things carefully. Already one editor has confirmed and verified my article do not have the claimed issues such as reliability and copyrights, pls see [[animal protection]]'s history, therefore I was just reverted destructive changes. And the article was changed back to earlier version. what I did just reverted unfounded charge. Also I have issue for block my previous account, I considered it was not a fair decision. I had this username youdontownwiki, You policy say people cannot use organization’s name, but wiki does not equal to Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki I had to create current username itsaniceusername in order to keep my contribution, I didn’t care this too much at the time so didn’t report, but I think it worth to mention it here. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}