Coloane

Welcome back, I hope you still like Wikipedia after being temporarily blocked. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Blocked? when? Coloane (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Opps, how come your archive links to the article's talk page archive? I'm going to fix it for you, ok? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK! Coloane (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did you see the reference tag placed behind that sentence? Ya, these are called references and they provide a fact whether you like it or not. And you can't accuse someone having sockpuppet or meatpuppet unless you give concrete proof (such as wording, spelling mistake, identical phrases) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't object nor remove the tag they provided. What I objected is they keep reverting what I edited over there. What I edited didn't make a conflict with the reference they provided. Coloane (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like you to check their edit histories (i.e. user:Caniago and user:Merbabu) carefully and see if there are any identical phrases, words, etc. I highly suspect meatpuppet can be established. They always join hand in hand and edit all Indonesian articles and revert all those who are not from their ideas. Coloane (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can try Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser if you have strong evidence (e.g. provide evidences such as exact wordings/identical phrases with diffs). But that's only if you're confident if it's sockpuppet. If it's meatpuppet, nothing we (or checkusers) can do because they're editing from 2 different IPs. Right now, I would suggest you to take a break from editing that article. Right now you are alone in this issue and your record counts against you. If Caniago and Merbabu's behaviour continues and someone else thinks it's disruptive, they will file an report and you may provide your evidence at the same time. So in short, take a break, ok? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sure thing! Due to my heavy job here, would you please help me to check their histories and est if they are qualified as meatpuppet (most likely) or sockpuppet (most likely not, but still there are little chances). Regards! Coloane (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

And don't do anything controversial. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear User:Orderinchaos, User:Coloane, User:Merbabu, and User:Caniago:

I know this notice is going to be long and involves a bit of philosophical thinking, so TRY reading it at least twice before replying. I would like to point out a few things:

1. Coloane's topic ban is very straight and simple. No nomination/review in GA and FA (as confirmed by community). It is suggested by Orderinchaos that this ban is extended to FT, FL, FP, FPORT, and FS (this requires community confirmation). However, Indonesian Chinese article is not in any of the aforementioned processes at the moment and I see Merbabu and Caniago are trying to discredit Coloane using the topic ban reason. This is nothing but straw man argument.
2. Calling someone as sockpuppet/meatpuppet without concrete evidence is against AGF. BUT dealing with "uncivil" editors does not immediately grant you rights to be uncivil and not AGF.
3. I am completely uninvolved regarding the topic ban issue or the Indonesian Chinese article. It's unfair for me to be dragged in, when I have to go through hundreds of diffs in the article as well evidences presented by different parties.

My recommendation to all parties is to move this discussion from my talk page to Talk:Chinese Indonesian, which is the talk page of the article you guys are disputing on. Try drop your conflicts that you had with other people and work as a team. Think about it. Had the person who reverted is not the person you had conflict with, would you want to stir up so much trouble just to win an argument? If things doesn't work out at the end, then we have no choice but to send it to WP:AN.

This notice has been copied exactly to all 4 people addressed in the first line. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of fact, the consensus of so-called topic ban on ANI has not been made as the user:Orderinchaos hijacked and terminated the discussion and proposal unmaturely. The ridiculous reason he gave was that he might see I may have more supporters after the question(s) asking by the user:josuechan. I never heard about this reason before. For the matter of sockpuppet/meatpuppet, I didn't formally accuse of the user:Caniago and user:Merbabu being as sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I only suspected the likelihood of being meatpuppet could be well-established. That is why I discussed this matter with you personally. I didn't expect that they intruded my personal discussion with you and wrote down nonsense (i.e.topic ban which is completely unrelated to the issue I discussed with you) on your talk page. I think they are smart enough to know it is a straw man argument. The main purpose for them to write down this nonsense is to distract my discussion of meatpuppet with you. Coloane (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why the table should be listed alphabetically. If the table is listed under the "list of countries with RANKINGS" (see the title of table below), it should be listed as a top down ranking with the highest GDP PPP per capita listing first. Other lists of countries like List of countries by birth rate, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per hour worked, List of countries by GDP (nominal), to name a few, are not listed alphabetically just like this article. Why they are excluded?? any reason for this?? if not, then would you consider this table as an(or your) original research (please refer to WP:OR) since this table was not specifically followed exactly what the sources provided like CIA or IMF? Coloane (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you correctly indicated, your comment is really not suitable where you've put it, so I've put it here, and have replied here.

• As to the alphabetical question: a). This is not me who decided to sort it alphabetically. b). see the note (in italics) above the table. c). We have one unified table (including different lists of different bodies) - rather than 4 different tables, so the table can be sorted alphabetically only. If not alphabetically - then how can one sort it according to ranking? whose ranking? CIA ranking? IMF ranking? WB ranking? c). However, your question is answered on the article itself: see the note (in italics) above the table. Anyway, I highly recommend that you ask the person who decided to sort it alphabetically.
• As to the World Bank list: a) This is not me who added the WB list. b). Per capita values were obtained by dividing the PPP GDP data by the Population data. Anyway, I highly recommend that you ask the person who decided to add the WB list.

Eliko (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is that possible for you to restore the list which was ranked with the highest GDP PPP per capita listing first? Coloane (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the last version which sorted the countries according to ranking. Eliko (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your searching. I prefer this version. Would you please restore this version after the process of mediation? Coloane (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Remind me then. Eliko (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. [1] [2] 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. I draw your attention specifically to the following: some types of comments are never acceptable: [for example] racial...epithets directed against another contributor and insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Orderinchaos 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did towards User:Orderinchaos, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. disparaging comments including race, education and similar - as explained above - are never accepted. I ask that you please be kind enough to show us your good manners and apologise to the editor involved as soon as possible --VS ^talk 01:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This matter I already sent to Jimbo Wales. Coloane (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jimbo is not going to intervene for you. You need to stop making attacks against Orderinchaos immediately or you will be blocked. Orderinchaos is not bothering you, he was asked to comment on your community ban and he did so; leave it be. Shell ^babelfish 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So let Jimbo make his own comment, you can't speak on behalf of him, am I right? Coloane (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, not really. This is not a subjective matter. You cannot attack other editors, no matter what justification you may feel you have. Please see WP:Civil. Enigma ^msg! 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I note your message regarding Jimbo - and concur with Shell Kinney. I am more than happy for you to wait until Jimbo replies to you but in the meantime I have asked you to show the wikipedia community that you are able to apologise directly to Orderinchaos and I will be interested to see if you are able to bring yourself to achieving that request?--VS ^talk 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You all don't understand! I am not talking about personal attacks. I am talking about: hijacking the discussion and disturbing my discussion with OhanaUnited. There is no format of apology and, apology has been made. Check the talk page of OhanaUnited. Coloane (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OhanaUnited asked Orderinchaos about the topic ban - this is the only reason he commented. Orderinchaos was not hijacking or disturbing your discussion. Your "apology" on OhanaUnited's talk page included another attack on Orderinchaos; it would probably be best if you sincerely apologized and ceased any form of attack on other Wikipedia contributors. Shell ^babelfish 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Slip sliding around is not going to assist you to show the community that you are prepared to change your ways. You have been particularly offensive to Orderinchaos and you have been asked to apologise personally to him. Whether you do or not will give everyone else watching an understanding of the type of editor you are - my point is to try to get you to understand the importance of a sincere apology - and not the off-handed comment you made at OhanaUnited. How you do or don't put that apology will speak to us very clearly. Would you care to consider my request?--VS ^talk 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

well, believe me or not, I don't know what do you mean by sincere apology. If you want, you can give me a format and let me fill and sign, what do you think? Coloane (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

[outdented for readabilty] No Coloane if you don't know how to say sorry to a fellow editor or human being there is not much I can do to help you now. Thank you. Please note the warning will remain in effect and blocking will occur if you re-offend.--VS ^talk 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

yeah, I already read your warning message (actually two warnings gave me together immediately). Regards! Coloane (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your latest question on my talk page refers. My answer is:

• Would you be happy with such an apology if I commented on your education and racial background in disparaging terms?
• Would you be happy if I put that apology on another person's page or would you think me more polite and courageous if I put it on your page? --VS ^talk 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

well, I think Orderinchaos will keep very close eye on my edit history and I am sure he already read my message of apology, no matter where I put, am I right? Coloane (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you left permanently in January, then this latest controversy would not have happened. Enigma ^msg! 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

With the increasing groundswell of hostility he has created so far in the community, it's just a matter of time before he is being blocked indefinitely or faced a permanent community ban ultimately. No doubt about that. I had a good laugh when I stumbled upon his recent postings at Jimbo's page. I almost fell off from my chair, especially by the closing remarks made by daveh4h. That was a classic! -- 165.21.154.116 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear IP from Singapore, if you fall off from your chair, please fall off somewhere else. I am not sure if you are user:Huaiwei or his other followers, but please refrain from making unconstructive and provokable comments here on my talk page. I am still actively appearing in French Wikipedia and thus I check this talk page from time to time. Coloane (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you are still writing you are not retired. Can you please change your retired notice to reflect today's date of February 28, 2008?--VS ^talk 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Change noted - thank you.--VS ^talk 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well this is the real user:Huaiwei, so what's the problem? I also had a laugh seeing how "active" a retired person is. So what are you gonna do from now? Make an edit, then change the retirement date each time?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, fun's over. People, let's get this over with and go back to editing instead of beating a dead horse. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply