User talk:60.242.38.174

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shanghai. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gwernol 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User_talk:Benjwong: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwernol 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have provided detailed reasons why the offensive content should be removed. There was no direct and meaningful response and thus I removed the content. For Gwernol's comment on the discussion page of the article Shanghai, I was trying to provide the following content to support my argument when I found myself blocked. I believe I should not be blocked as what I am claiming is 100% legal. For the reasons mentioned below, the old Canidrome in Shanghai is not elegant. I ask my ip address to be unblocked and the offensive content about the Canidrome in the article of Shanghai to be removed."

Decline reason: "Edits such as this one remove well-sourced content from the page and thus do not exempt you from 3RR. — Yamla 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I agree the building desgin can be regarded as elegant. Then what people need to do is clearly indicate the design of the _BUILDING_ itself is elegant. What I am saying here is the Canidrome is not elegant. I have provided detailed reference from the government web site showing the detailed history of that Canidrome, for example, the land was taken by force and Chinese were not allowed to access the Canidrome. Gwernol, let is just face a dead simple question: should the Canidrome be regarded as elegant? What I want to remind is this is the most sensitive part of the Shanghai history, most people in Shanghai regard the Canidrome and its policy of none Chinese accessing as offensive and this argument is supported by huge number of different articles:

Shanghai Achieves' (reliable enough?) record on the Canidrome, the article clearly shows the land was taken by force from the local Chinese: http://www.archives.sh.cn/mzhyt/200702020528.htm

Eastday article clearly shows Chinese are not allowed to all those parks and the Canidrome, eastday is the the most popular news site in Shanghai. http://wm.eastday.com/renda/dfwm/smsc/node3435/userobject1ai97702.html

Ctrip artile also mentioned how the land was illegally occupied to build the Canidrome, Ctrip (listed on Nasdaq) is the most popular web site on traveling in China, http://www.ctrip.com/Destinations/DistrictClue.asp?Clue=31, I can provide you another 100 different sources if necessary. --60.242.38.174 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All you needed to do was add this well-sourced information to the article. The problem is that you instead chose to repeatedly delete sections of the article, despite warnings not to do so and clearly against policy. When your block lifts you should update the article using the sources you provided. Gwernol 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)