Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As a note to all, I haven't abandoned this case - I'm just buried under exams week. Will post evidence Monday or Tuesday. Snowspinner 00:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Will this case end soon? In light of the interesting finding from Mark, I need some time before I can reorganize my edits too. :( --Mababa
I just find it silly really... and I fail to understand why you can't tell the difference between the geographical region called China and the geographical region called Taiwan... in respect to the stub sorting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The case is still closed
This case has not been reopened, and therefore it is still closed. I don't think new evidence should be presented [1] before a case is opened. — Instantnood 17:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I do notice you appear to be stroking the fire and rekindling old disputes as soon as the case was closed, despite User:Ran's advice against such provocative behavior. User_talk:Instantnood#Mainland_China_etc. It appears that you need a permanant case to be open against you before we can have peace here?--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 05:55 (UTC)
- The articles that I added to the disputed categories after the case was closed were previous not categorised to any of the relevent categories. I did not move any article from the PRC categories to the mainland ones. It is obvious that it wasn't me who appeared to be "stroking the fire and rekindling old disputes". — Instantnood June 29, 2005 07:20 (UTC)
- Anyone can check your history page for an answer to that, the same way you enjoy checking up on others. Since you want to be territorialising, then be prepared to be scrutinised in the same manner. I have noticed you adding back edits I have disputed after noticing I was away, as is evident in National dish. Meanwhile, the way you handle Shifu is quite worthy for observation. Reverts seems to be your favourite tool over discussion, despite your pretentious willingness for open discussions. Your form of "discussions", btw, simply means any form of verbal exchange in which only one point of view is acceptable. Yours. Obviously, nothing has changed all these while...the leapord will always be spotted.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)
- You're very right. Everything is transparent on Wikipedia, and everyone is welcome to check on my records. Nobody has to get prepared for that, because one should have expected that to edit on Wikipedia. It is not only my point of view.. my position is also shared by some other contributors, but that seems to be a fact somebody would decline to accept (for instance, the examples you have cited, national dish and sifu). — Instantnood June 29, 2005 15:10 (UTC)
- Oh, and interestingly, in your latest chain of edit clashes in somehow trying to assert cantonese superiority over all Chinese languages, you made an edit to each redirect page to prevent a page move. You must be thinking you are damn smart or something, but that obviously just adds to the statistics about you. :D --Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:40 (UTC)
- Sounds like you don't care what people are saying at Talk:Sifu. ;-) (and actually I was told that the redirect command has to be capitalised.) — Instantnood June 30, 2005 09:24 (UTC)
- Haha....I obviously read it before making my comment about the move. Since no one objected to it (including yourself), I obviously proceeded to initiate the change. Meanwhile, you were apparantlu told to use small caps on 15:29, Mar 28, 2005. Could you explain why you still proceeded to use it as recently as a few days ago....3 months since that notice? If that notice was made to you a few hours ago, I would probably buy your argument. But if it was made 3 months ago, dont you think I have reason to suspect it was a calculated, delibrate act? ;)--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)
- Sounds like you don't care what people are saying at Talk:Sifu. ;-) (and actually I was told that the redirect command has to be capitalised.) — Instantnood June 30, 2005 09:24 (UTC)
- Oh, and interestingly, in your latest chain of edit clashes in somehow trying to assert cantonese superiority over all Chinese languages, you made an edit to each redirect page to prevent a page move. You must be thinking you are damn smart or something, but that obviously just adds to the statistics about you. :D --Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:40 (UTC)
- You're very right. Everything is transparent on Wikipedia, and everyone is welcome to check on my records. Nobody has to get prepared for that, because one should have expected that to edit on Wikipedia. It is not only my point of view.. my position is also shared by some other contributors, but that seems to be a fact somebody would decline to accept (for instance, the examples you have cited, national dish and sifu). — Instantnood June 29, 2005 15:10 (UTC)
- Anyone can check your history page for an answer to that, the same way you enjoy checking up on others. Since you want to be territorialising, then be prepared to be scrutinised in the same manner. I have noticed you adding back edits I have disputed after noticing I was away, as is evident in National dish. Meanwhile, the way you handle Shifu is quite worthy for observation. Reverts seems to be your favourite tool over discussion, despite your pretentious willingness for open discussions. Your form of "discussions", btw, simply means any form of verbal exchange in which only one point of view is acceptable. Yours. Obviously, nothing has changed all these while...the leapord will always be spotted.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)
- The articles that I added to the disputed categories after the case was closed were previous not categorised to any of the relevent categories. I did not move any article from the PRC categories to the mainland ones. It is obvious that it wasn't me who appeared to be "stroking the fire and rekindling old disputes". — Instantnood June 29, 2005 07:20 (UTC)
