Tzu Zha Men

Welcome

Hello Tzu Zha Men and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Reeves

Hi there, you may be interested in commenting on this discussion. Thanks.--TM 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

clever

Recently, you cleverly revealed a user, Ani Medjool, for faking bad English, [1] and then he curiously retired. The user has now been put up for SPI, would you have anything to add from your investigation? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Ani medjool --Shuki (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see this is closed already. For what it's worth, although I am quite certain that AM is not a new user, I don't think he is SD. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

Your revert

I just wanted to let you know that Gaza flotilla raid is currently on a 1RR restriction. This means only one revert may be done within 24 hours. Going beyond that can lead to a block. You haven't done anything wrong, I just noticed that you had done a revert and wanted to make sure you were aware of this restriction. Thanks for your contributions, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a discussion on Talk regarding this content please participate there, thanks. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added my comment there. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the notice when I edited the page. I have no intention to edit it any further. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

prior accounts

Have you ever used another account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 14:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have edited as an IP on occasion. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mothers' Bus

Gatoclass (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for the prompt attention. I have sharpened the in line cite. References do not have to be online thats why DYKtick|AGF exists. There are online refs but the offline is the most reliable. ODNB is online but requires a UK library card. Victuallers (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Thx TZM Victuallers (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring block notices

Please do not restore block or warning notices that user has deleted from his own talk page. WP:BLANKING allows this, even if a block is in effect. The user isn't allowed to blank declined unblock requests while a block is in effect. 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to restore the block notice as it's a silly thing to edit war over (and it is a moot point now since the sanctions expired), but you are wrong, users are not allowed to delete block notices from their own talk page while the block is in effect. What WP:BLANKING says is

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user – they are part of the wider community's processes or exist to prevent gaming of the system:

• Declined unblock requests, ban, validly imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)

- Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read what you quoted above carefully. WP:BLANKING is quite clear on this matter. Look again. Users are not to remove:

• Declined unblock requests
• Ban notices - these result from ArbCom decisions
• Edit restrictions - these also result from ArbCom decisions. "Edit restrictions" aren't just any administrative block, they are specifially ArbCom imposed restrictions. Click on the blue link and see for yourself.
• Confirmed sockpuppetry related notices

Nowhere are block and warning notices mentioned. Numerous threads on WP:ANI cover this topic as well, and they all confirm that users are not prohibited from removing warnings and block notices while blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, though I'll note that there are threads on WP:ANI that actually say the opposite. For example, this says , in the closing note,"Users can remove expired block notices from their talk page, but not unexpired ones, nor declined unblock requests when the block has not yet expired.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)", or this. As I said, it is not terribly important, in any case. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Affair

I'm impressed that someone created an article about this. Well done. The time's come to create an article on Iranian arms trafficking. Would you be interested in collaborating? I've started gathering sources to build a case for notability, but it still turns out to be a convoluted situation. The U.S. doesn't sell arms to Iran officially, but the U.K. sells some parts. So on the one hand the U.S. criticizes the U.K., but on the other there are indications the U.S. has exploited U.K. law and ties with Iran to sell it arms indirectly. Last week I left a message on the Discussion page at Bill Clinton because I read that he was complicit in allowing Iran to deliver arms to Muslims in Bosnia in 1994. No one's replied to the message yet, though. Also, there doesn't seem to be a global ranking system for arms traffickers. It would be helpful if the lead of the article could say something like, "Iran is one of the world's leading arms traffickers." Let me know if this dovetails with your agenda.—Biosketch (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree that it would be useful to have the Victoria article give some background on Iranian arms smuggling, but wed have to find a source that says "Iran is one of the world's leading arms traffickers." before it can be included. SO far I haven't found something like that. I'd be happy to work with you on an Iranian arms trafficking article. Do you have a sandbox where you have started work ?

Here are some useful sources:

• [2]
• [3] Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, when there's time I'll develop this very rough draft here: User:Biosketch/Iranian arms trafficking. Feel free to contribute in any way you feel will be helpful. Also, for the record, when I used the word "agenda" above, it wasn't meant in the POV sense but rather as in "if it fits in with your schedule and interests." I thought that should be clarified, since the page isn't to promote an agenda but to fill a gap on Wikipedia. Best, —Biosketch (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Mendip (L60)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Spare me your attempts to call me a racist and block me

Gilad Shalit is a PRISONER of WAR. He was CAPTURED in BATTLE. He's a SOLDIER. NOT a civilian. And I'm NOT race baiting. I know Gilad's plight is very popular, hence you and other Jewish editors LOVE to use the words "abducted" and "kidnapped". Well, guess what? That's FALSE. He was in a battle in a tank. I have nothing against Jews. I don't care that you are Jewish. Your edits are biased, as are other Jewish editor's edits. Shalit was NOT abducted. When the seven day block on Gilad Shalit's article expires, I WILL revert your edits. That is a promise. --200.137.163.10 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If I had wanted to get you blocked, you'd be blocked by now, as you clearly violated numerous policies by edit warring and personally attacking other editors. Instead, I prevented you from continuing that disruptive behavior on the Gilad Shalit article, while allowing you to continue editing. If you want to discuss the specifics of Shalit' status - do so on the article's talk page. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to attack other editors, as you are doing above, by focusing on what you imagine their religion or ethnicity to be, you will likely find yourself blocked soon. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Victoria Affair

Cheers, BigDom 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Santorini (ship)

Hello! Your submission of Santorini (ship) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've fixed these issues - I believe the "unreferenced paragraph" comment was related to the "Aftermath" section - this was cited int he lead, but not the actual section - I've corrected that. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Santorini (ship)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bridge of Peace

Hello, Tzu Zha Men. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link Tzu Zha Men. I appreciate your help. I should have guessed that http was needed to properly show the source. :) Tuscumbia (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gaza Marathon

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

After considering the evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 and private email, I have blocked this account indefinitely. You may appeal this block by using {{unblock|reason}}.

Reviewing admin: If you are considering an unblock, please contact me by email first. T. Canens (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the "evidence" in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 actually points to no relation with NoCal100: "The technical evidence is Inconclusive." and "there's no usable technical evidence here (except that the DSL ISP here didn't seem to match NC100's old ISP)." This block seems to be based on some secret e-mail "evidence" collated by an adversary (who has been topic banned from the I/P area) which I can't defend myself against, not having seen it. Could an uninvolved editor review this, please.

Decline reason:

"The technical evidence is Inconclusive" and "there's no usable technical evidence here" do not "point to no relation with NoCal100": they merely mean that technical checks do not provide enough evidence of such a relationship to decide the issue. There is clear behavioural evidence that this account has been used by the same person as at least some other accounts, whether NoCal100 is one of them or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

I have to say I find this news very distressing. Tzu Zha Men (talk · contribs) was one of a small number of I/P contributors whom I genuinely respected.—Biosketch (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really innocent I think you should appeal to the ARBCOM--Shrike (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)