User talk:Guotaian

Page protected

I’ve protected this page from IPs and new accounts for a short period of time due to the repeated apparent harassment here by an IP. Please let me or another admin know if you would like this protection extended or removed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in Greater China

This page was apparently created by ProKMT as a "compromise" with you over something? I'm getting a bit tired of them boldly making massive changes like this on the basis of a consensus of two editors. Can you please explain the background of this "compromise" to me? Because this is now a pretty big mess. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ProKMT (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Template:Liberalism in China. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, I am writing to appeal my one-week block because I believe it was a misunderstanding. A few weeks ago, I had requested a third opinion to resolve the dispute between me and Pro-KMT. The 3O had provided a clear solution regarding our disputes. Unfortunately, Pro-KMT did not follow the 3O, which led him undoing my edits and violating the 3RR . I was acting in good faith, and I respectfully request a reconsideration of my block. Best Regards, Guotaian

Decline reason:

Please make a new unblock request showing the outcome of the 3O. I couldn't immediately find this. Yamla (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2025 (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.

Unless there's another 3O request that someone else started, this is referring to this, the response at each of those requests for a third opinion directs the discussion to a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Political ideology templates. I don't see a clear consensus for reverting edits like this (which is the pre-edit warring version) in that WikiProject discussion (which Guotaian did not participate in) and this discussion on the template talk page (which Guotaian also did not participate in) seems to show a distinct lack of consensus for Guotaian's edits on that page, yet they've made four reverts to that page since that discussion opened. Guotaian has not participated in any discussion that includes a party other than themselves of ProKMT has commented on, instead choosing to engage in edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Here is the 3O that you requested for: [1].

Decline reason:

Edit warring is still edit warring even if you think you're just implementing consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2025 (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.

April 2025

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you recently removed content from Singapore without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reform UK. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Reform UK.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin

My actions in Reform UK article was just to revert it back to its original form, where the wording would make more sense. Yet, Skitash had just undid my edits claiming I was destructive despite trying to fix the problem. Skitash, who had also violated the 3RR, was not even blocked. I can't understand why I got an indefinite block while Skitash walked free.

Best Regards, Guotaian. Guotaian (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Your request should only discuss your actions. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2025 (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.

Socked with Powerpolnow. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the block is not a "permanent block", suggesting it will never be removed. The duration is completely up to you. Creating other accounts is one way to make sure the block is long. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Per PhilKnight, Guotaian and Powerpolnow are unrelated, although Powerpolnow is a sock of another user.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I am not related to Powerpolnow in any form. Guotaian (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpolnow came here and made unblock request in your name and then removed it. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]