User talk:Zhanzhao/Archive 3

Talkback

Hello, Zhanzhao. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 01:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The IP editor who has filed this ANI report has requested I ask you for your input, as you were involved in the last ANI against Lgdp. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird revert

Hi on Tony Tan Keng Yam I didn't get your reason for the removal of the cited remarks from the Library of Congress Country Studies; I believe that it's good to clarify for readers (who would not know) the background behind labor relations in Singapore. Did you mean to take away something else? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have copied your question to the article page and answered it there. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zhanzhao. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Astroturfing on Singaporean politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Posted on behalf of filing party User:La goutte de pluie by Arbitration Committee clerk Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

i am autistic woman with grammer problmes by --Sunuraju (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. No offense, but your previous edit was really not making sense, and for the benefit of Wikipedia users, I had to revert to the last known edit that made more sense. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Balakrishnan

Hi Zhanzhao, I have recently rewritten parts of the article mentioned above. I see that you were involved in discussions about the article earlier. I would like to understand the context of the dispute in the section listed under:

Talk:Vivian Balakrishnan#language of the whole video affair.

I would appreciate your help with expanding the articles on Vivian Balakrishnan and Grace Fu. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I am not as active as I used to be but I'll see what I can do. Cheers Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Belinda Ang

Hi,

I am rather surprised by the proposal for deletion. A High Court judge (which is what she is), under the constitution, and basically under any conception of separation of powers, is to the judiciary what a minister is to the executive/legislature. One could say the article is stubby, to denounce notability is absurd. Moreover, the notability guideline is rather clear on this. Chensiyuan (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way see it is that although the post is important, the subject is not, nor notable. Based on the content of the article, there is barely any writeup on the subject in in respect to her post. I hope you see where I am coming from. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll beef it up. Chensiyuan (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wee Shu Min elitism controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wee Shu Min elitism controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wee Shu Min elitism controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Just who is the banned user who posted Joy Tong's study on the article page of CHC? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it from the Page analysis function, a user called La goutte de pluie. As identified by DanS76 in the CHC talk page. In fact her last act, the one that got her banned, was to stalk another editor that got into an arguement with her and twist that guy's edit. Even more glaring when you realize LGDP only edits Singapore or science articles, and the CHC article was the only exception during that time frame. Basically the CHC article became collatoral damage for her disagreements with me. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The study was added and pushed by her around Aug 27, 2011. Around that time, she was involved in this [[1]]. And to give more context, she used to be an admin with questionable COI issues and I was the first to raise it in ANI[[2]] so I can understand why she was stalking me. i was not the first one she "stalked", nor was this the 1st article she tried to "punish" whitewashing i.e. see the Vivan Balakrishnan article and talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that explains everything, thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tiny Island Productions.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ben Hudson (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Hi Zhanzhao, I'm just curious. Why didn't you warn the vandal who vandalised Singapore national football team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic Kangaroo (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an IP editor, based on past experience most of the time it does not work. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I see. New thing that I learned from you today. :) Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zhanzhao. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
Message added 04:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, I completely missed your reply at the AfC help desk. The short of it: I expect the draft will pass the next review, but I'd try and find a substitute for the press release. Good work! Huon (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and assist! Zhanzhao (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Tiny Island Productions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DanS76 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zhanzhao. You have new messages at Darkness Shines's talk page.
Message added 13:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Darkness Shines (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Lawrence Khong's Polo Medal & Article

Hello, yes I'm afraid my research was highly insufficient in this case. [[3]] The above link shows clearly his involvement in the SEA Games 2007. As for the rest of his page, it was been littered with countless of, shall we call them, snarky comments that were not meant to libel. However, certain pieces of information there do not have any relevant links, most return a 404, hence I feel should be deleted, as well as certain sections that seem more opinionated than factual, which should be the point of an article. I do hope you will be able to help me in looking through his article and cross referencing information that can be seen as relevant and opinion based, as well as removing those without any factual backings or evidence, as any further edits by me will be seen as vandalism, as well they should be, and I'll probably started commenting on his hair more than anything else. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam93man (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film is based of case

2013 film Norigae is based of Jang Ja-yeon case here by --Sunuraju (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Najib Razak

Zhanzhao, I have left you a message on the discussion page of Najib Razak. I noticed that you reverted me again without waiting or attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page even after I clearly pointed out that there are severe and glaring BLP issues with the assertions that you have included in the article. Please stop immediately with the edit-warring and start discussing the points raised on the talk page. On Wikipedia, we have to be particularly sensitive about biographies of living persons as a matter of rule, so please assume good faith when an established editor and administrator reverts you citing BLP. Reporting by Reuters or any other reliable source does not preclude an assertion or theory from being fringe, I would ask you to please review Wikipedia's content guideline on fringe theories. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did reply you on your page that my input was not to include the content as a fact/statement, but to include it as how the allegations were causing a controversy and how the subject and the government is reacting to the allegations. I have a more detailed reply in the talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments on the talk page. Please separate your comments from mine as they render them confusing and unusable for other interested users. I note that you have added a similar paragraph on Abdul Razak Baginda with matters of opinion masquerading as facts. You are advised to remove the section pending the resolution of the discussion on Talk:Najib Razak. Also it is poor form to include capitalized text such as "Bribery and Murder Allegations" in addition to misrepresenting sources after the individual has been acquitted. Please remember that BLP is a policy that is strictly enforced on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the title on the Abdul Razak Baginda page, I just cut and pasted it, will tweak it accordingly. As for removing the section about the murder wholesale, the whole murder accusation/acquital and submarine acquisition irregularity is what makes the subject notable in the first place.... (google "Razak Baginda") and just scroll through the hits. That's as good/bad as excluding the content about Meredith Kercher from the Amanda Knox article even though she was acquitted. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Workers' Party of Singapore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding Response to comments. The thread is Death of Shane Todd.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Theinsidefacts (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP edits

Recently, you undo my changes regarding the WP page. In your theory, I'm should be allowed to add the AIM issue, Palmer's reasons for resignation into PAP's page? For some reason, it's stated in WP's page but not in PAP's.

I stand by it that they should be a distinction between the party itself and town council matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with regards to there being a separation of WP and TC, the quoted source itself makes a point of pointing out WP's importance in the story. With regards to the other points you raised, there should be no reason those are not included on wikipedia as well, so long as the edits follow wikipedia's policies. My suggestion would be in fact to have a detailed writeup at the TC pagea, then wikilink it in the WP article. In fact, I am surprised there isn't much more written AIM and the other big news of note, the hawker center cleaning muck-up (pun intended) hasn't been mentioned anywhere here, though I suspect that its quite hard to tackle it neutrally makes it difficult to approach. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for keeping watch on my talk page. If you're interested, I listed the article itself up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Been there, which is why my page has semi-protected status, so I literally understand how annoying this gets. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you put a note on your user page than DanS76 is your brother (and he put one on his). NE Ent 19:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Didn't know this was supposed to be such an issue. Ironically now that I realised my bro's activity is practically none existant these days. Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and your brother

Per our policy on WP:FAMILY, "When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." -- you and your brother must both to add {{User shared IP address}} to both of your user pages, OR stop editing the same topic areas altogether; otherwise both accounts will be considered in violation of our policies on the use of accounts and will be blocked until you agree to comply. I will give you a few days to respond. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per DanS's last post on the SPI page, I think he's quitting wikipedia. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since he said he would retire the account, I've applied a "retired" and "shared IP" template to his user page for the sake of transparency. From this point on you should be the only active account in your household so everything should be fine. If he does come back to editing (especially in the same area as you), you will have to add the "shared IP" template to your own user page also. Thank you for your understanding! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone

Apparently a IP, TCKTKtool, Zhanzhao(You), and I are all the same person? At least that is what OccultZone is accusing people that disagree with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zhanzhao I see you already replied but added a part to the others talk pages so they know. Resaltador (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I can only speak for myself to state that I, personally, am not socking. Dunno why OccultZone singled me out to create the investigation in my name, maybe he's unhappy I luckily survived the blockwave due to not being involved in the most recent fracas there. Will just let the SPI clerk complete the checkuser vindicate me. Unless someone's been spoofing my IP and doubling as me, in which this SPI investigation will be the least of my worries lol.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNTALK

Read WP:OWNTALK, you cannot restore same messages on others talk page when they've been already removed. And I really don't want to waste any more time by responding to your meaningless and repetitive queries when I have already done once. You are doing nothing but digging your own grave by bragging about an SPI that has been already accepted by an SPI clerk to be valid. You don't even understand the meaning between WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, it merely means a checkuser will be conducted on me against all the other accounts you claim are my socks, which I absolutely welcome for the mere fact that I'm not at all bothered by what the outcome will be, just when it comes out. This is not a game of poker, so considering that I have absolutely nothing to gain by trying to run a "bluff" here, lets wait it out, shall we? Hint: You already checked the locations of the 2 IPs you claim are my socks, and I have already mentioned previously where I am from. It ain't even in the same continent. It doesn't take much to realize, even without being able to run CU on myself, what the outcome of it will be. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee Kuan Yew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 2 April 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Lee Kuan Yew, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

No reason to keep commenting in ANI

Hi. I think you should not keep commenting on ANI. The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mishandling_of_an_SPI is only about the SPI and not on the question whether you sock puppet or not. The discussion is on the procedure and not in the actual case. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Guess I'll see what OZ does next - he's requested admins to unarchive stuff before so I really dunno what to expect. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Making malformed accusations without submitting actual evidence is a blockable offense. It has been one of the many times that you have accused me of WP:Harassment while you haven't backed up such accusations with evidence.[4] Consider this as a last warning.

As for you, editing that particular article, I really don't know where you were. The politician died recently and I saw a factual error that I've worked on removing for a long time now.[5][6] If you can prove that these terms, "third world", "first world", have any official use or they can explicitly describe the efforts of Lee Kuan Yew, when Singapore had already joined Non-aligned movement(correct term for "third world") in 1970?[7] Yew was already convincing himself to join it since 1965,[8] I can be convinced otherwise if you can prove that Singapore was an ally of the United States or the United Kingdom any after 1959 - 1970. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I said "IF". PS: The Lee died last week, interest has already started to die down. That write-up was still being debated on the talkpage (across 2 headings) and DRN, but you acted without bothering to look at the talk page. I stated my case, I'll let Worm That Turned evaluate. I just want to get on with helping out and staying away from you, but I won't have you disrupting the other editors or hounding me from the page I'm working on. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhanzhao:

Your brother

If you haven't already read it, you should take a look at Wikipedia:My little brother did it. It's an excuse that gets old very fast. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz:, thanks for your note. In this instance I am really sorry about that revert edit on OccultZone's edit using my account. Right now the only thing I want is for him to leave me alone, and the last thing I want is to give him any reason to come after me again. I was shocked to see the edit in my conteibution history, Dan said he didn't do it, but I don't believe it so I have changed my login passwords on my account so he can't access it from my pc. I see the undo was made with a twinkle so I yesterday I even disabled all Twinkle gadgets (I know it automatically helps with some tasks but am not sure exactly how automatic it is). I also sincerely apologized to OccultZone on his page. Like I said, if possible, i really hope our paths never cross again unless maybe as neutral editors.Zhanzhao (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN

You are probably correct about the problems that they were arising only after 23 March, nothing really before that and you have been targeted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitrary break. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also do me one favor. The 2 diffs that you have included after your statement ".. list of so-called "evidence" against me.." are actually incorrect and you should remove them. You can ask any of these two people, I didn't talked about you. I talked to one about this case and talked with other about some software issues and other editor. In a few words, Ponyo and Magioladitis are not involved in your case of SPI. Neither Swarm was. You should not have mentioned them. I also understand that you weren't aware so it was probably not intended. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I mentioned Ponyo and Magioladitis because they have both stepped in to weigh in about your recent behaviour, or asked you to move on, these were both clearly demonstrated on your talk page, so I stand correct in my wording. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of them were related to you, that's why I am asking you to to remove both of them from your comment. Only because they had a email from me, it doesn't means that they concerned you, unless you have got clear proof, them stating it. Is it misleading. They don't mention you, and the "account" Ponyo was talking about was a sock of Sonic2030 that he had blocked. Text won't appear to others anymore it is hidden. Don't make it reappear unless you can prove that they were talking about you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply your AN comment here. I did not agreed to a I-Ban because it is very tricky. Both editors can be blocked even if they have contributed on a same article and even if they didn't knew about it. Just like I didn't knew that you were on Lee Kuan Yew, if we were under I-Ban, both could be blocked for contributing on same article. All I agreed to is, that we can return to our forms and interaction, that was prior 23 March. Don't think that we ever checked each others contribution history or talked about each other on user talk pages before that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an alternative account myself, check Occults (talk · contribs). Everyone is allowed to have alternative accounts but when others view that a person has not handled the multiple accounts(including IPs) within the policies, the editors are often provided with a better offer, when they are restricted to one account. Since it was discussed on AN, restrictions are logged only as a record. I don't think I will have time to file SPIs about you anymore. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explicitely state on AN that you will not bug me about the old SPIs/accounts, I am willing to accept that. I want to move on too. As I said, if you do see evidence of new socking activity from me, you are welcome to raise it. I just don't want both of us to sound like old tape-recorders and disturb others. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had, you have already agreed to a new proposal as well so it would be new start for both of us. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the AN as well. I want this to be a fresh start too. And thanks for removing the vandalism edits on the Lee Kuan Yew page. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had also asked for protection, you can see the high-level vandalism on that article, but for some unknown reason it was rejected. I will try again, if it continues, probably after 7 days. Anyways don't you think that you should clear off current material from your userpage and put some things that are actually attractive? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I am amazed that you are still reading everything that I have written around. Tell me that where did I said anything against you over there? I only told about the things that already happened since it was related to that event. I had found out the IPs that you had used, and described on that WP:AN. There is nothing wrong in pointing to those events. Although there would be a problem if I say that you are still socking and say it without proof. Have I? No.

It is true that sock puppetry is still going on there, check [9][10] and that's Marlin1975/Sonic2030. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I have rewrote [11] a bit for you, is that fine? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 SPI staffers had pointed out to you that I was unrelated to the other new accounts (the IPs, Resaltador, TCTKtool, Bargalus) that were popping up at you-know-what page, that you had misidentified as me. This was from both CU, and even behavioral analysis. If you had focused on those new suspects separately from me from the start, they would have been caught out earlier. In fact, right now at ARC if you focused your arguments on how you were prevented from rooting out those other accounts, and didn't mention me per your promise to Begoon "Thank you. I understand that as an assurance that you will not raise this issue again, at all, in any way, anywhere, and that sanctions may result should you do so", I would not even post there, as I wanted to keep to the AN we had agreed to. You have already gone through this merry-go-round with me so long; at every new avenue, more admins/editors cautioned you against your targeting me. I give you credit for the times you are right in your sock investigations, but when you are wrong, you simply refuse to let go even in spite of what other people (with greater clearance to evidence you do not have) are telling you. I am busy in real life at the moment (as can be seen from my drop in edits), and depending on the situation, will decide if I want to waste more time defending myself and some of the others you had dragged in. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I will restrict myself to just pointing out what I perceive as misrepresentations of conflict between us. Silence implies implicit guilt, which I am unable to accept. But this may change, as you've been very unfair to the admins, especially Swarm and Bgwhite. Swarm, because you misrepresented JamesBWatson's appraisal of Swarm's block, especially the 2nd time he explained what his first comments meant and gave you advice; and Bgwhite, because though you keep claiming that Bgwhite keeps reverting to "his preferred version", you were actually the last person who "signed off" on the writeup that Bgwhite was discussing on the talk page - its as much your preferred version as his. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [12]. JamesBWatson questioned the block (and also the unblock), but did not commit to saying that Swarm's and Bgwhite's actions were wrong. Just that he would have done it differently, with repeated emphasis that his statement was not based on in-depth analysis of the situation - which was not how you were presenting it. The rest of his statement, will not do your case any good either. Especially the last line. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]