User talk:Heqong

My Wikipedian Home!

Welcome! Feel free to leave me a message. I will reply either on your talk page or mine. Thanks!

Taipei 101

I'm not trying to get in an argument with you, but a new set of conventions was established recently, and I urge you to follow it. Please revert you own edit, thanks.--Jerry 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You seem to be trying to pick a fist fight with me. I would like to work with you peacefully and urge you to stop this. Taipei City is administratively a part of the Republic of China and not of Taiwan. If we follow other articles and common sense, ROC should be after Taipei only. Heqong 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really read what I wrote. A new set of conventions was established. We should really follow it. And no, I'm not trying to fight you, please assume good faith, thanks.--Jerry 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what you did to me, you were not assuming good faith. You were edit-warring with me. You did not leave anything to warrant that. You simply just reverted all my edits. Heqong 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, you were the one who accused me of picking a fist fight. And also you were engaged in edit warring too.--Jerry 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to fight me. I was doing everything fine, until suddenly someone came out of now where to attack me. You engaged in edit warring. I did not. I was merely reverting what I thought of as attacks and unilateral reverts/and maybe vandalism? Heqong 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks? How did I attack you? I was only telling you that there were new conventions.--Jerry 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You attacked me by edit warring. I was shocked that someone came out of now where to start reverting all my edits with little warning/notice/discussion. Please assume good faith and engage in peaceful discussion with me. That would help a lot.Heqong 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Umm, I believe I was here in Wikipedia before you were. So I should not be considered the one that came out of no where. I am trying to discuss peacefully, or else I would not even have started this conversation.--Jerry 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is that? Another attack on me? Are you saying that I am less experience and a novice? You are completely wrong. I was here on Wikipedia before you came along. That previous message you left was completely negative on your part. Heqong 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to look at things that way? I was just defending myself from your attack: someone came out of now where to start reverting all my edits.--Jerry 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement you made against me was particularly harsh. If you are so experienced as you claim, why do you engage in such a heated debate against me as opposed to peaceful discussion as you claim you want. I am trying to merely engage in peaceful discussion with you, but I am being attacked from all sides. I was here longer than you okay. Heqong 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. I started this conversation as a peaceful discussion, not a heated debate.--Jerry 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's not the point? That I am an older user than you are. In my opinion, that was not the point at all. But you are the one who brought it up and attacked me in such a way. That was also a false representation. You "tried" to start a peaceful discussion. But your comments quickly shifted this into a notorious heated debate/attacks against me. Heqong 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Please do not change the subject, I am not interested in your opinion towards my comments at all. What I wanted you to know is that there is a new set of conventions, please follow it. End of story.--Jerry 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not the end of the story. You attacked me for no reason. There are harsh consequences for such types of offenders. I came peacefully to edit Wikipedia and I was attacked brutally. I do not like this hostile environment that you have created at all. You are trying to twist everything and changing the facts of the case. You brought up that you "Were here longer" and implied that you are better than me. This was entirely inappropriate. I am following the facts of reality. Heqong 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you for the third time. I brought the fact that I was here longer because I didn't want your further attack of It was all fine until you came along, etc. I urged you to start following the conventions of Wikipedia, and did not attack you at all.--Jerry 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said you brought up "the fact that I was here longer..." That is not a fact. I was here longer than you and I can prove it. Please don't lie on my talk page. I have concrete proof that I was here longer than you. I do not understand your argument for your attacks and obstruction from your last comment. Would you care to re-explain things to me in a clearer manner? Heqong 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was clear from the very beginning. But since you asked for it, alright I'll state it one more time:

I understand that you are a relatively new user here in Wikipedia, but we have naming conventions here, which is to be followed. Recently, a new set of naming conventions dealing with Taiwan/ROC issues was established. Your edits were against the conventions. And I was just telling you to revert your edit. Is that clear?--Jerry 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I am new to Wikipedia? I have been here longer than you have. Heqong 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is not the point. Did you understand what I was trying to tell you?--Jerry 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in the name are you saying? If that is "not the point" as you claim, then why did you say "I understand that you are a relatively new user...blah blah" That is not nice of you. I am being mercilessly attacked by you and I demand that this stop. This is entirely inappropriate. I will state that again that I have been here longer than you, more than a year to be exact. Heqong 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? I have being here since late 2005, and have become active since mid 2006. Do you think I don't know the rules? Now, back to the Taiwan/ROC issue, did you understand my statement?--Jerry 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were not active in 2005 at all. This is hardly besides the point though. We have about equal amounts of time being here on Wikipedia so I think there is no need for you to "laugh at me and insult me as a new user" That is very inappropriate of you. I feel that your comments are increasingly very negative and violent. Heqong 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "laugh at" nor "insult" you , please stop this false accusation now. And for the fourth time, did you understand my statement?--Jerry 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments imply and lead me to believe that. I don't want to talk to you anymore for today. Good Day to you Sir. Heqong 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To believe what? If you refuse to discuss, you aren't trying to resolve this issue peacefully.--Jerry 21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heqong, I don't like your unwillingness to discuss.--Jerry 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to discuss with you, all I get is attacks and heated debates. Is this your spirit? Is this the Wikipedia way? No, I know it is not. I am an established user and I understand the stuation. I give reasons for my edits, unlike some people. —Heqong 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific, who attacked you? I give summaries for my edits too, I'm used to doing that too.--Jerry 21:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, WHO? It is obvious that I am referring to you. You are the sole perpetrator of these attacks. Please stop that. Please do not try to play around and act as nothing happened. But instead you have hurt me and the Wikipedia community. Heqong 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not playing around! Let's see, you first assumed bad faith by accusing me of "picking a fist fight." Then you accused me of trying to fight again, also pointing out that I "was the one who came out of no where." Then you kept accusing me of engaging in a so-called debate, but note that you were the one who called this conversation a debate. I would really appreciate if you would stop the false accusation, no apology is needed, just stop attacking me. Thanks.--Jerry 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked at the last comment. This conversation has been useless. Nothing has been achieved. You have insulted me various times and questioning my abilities by calling me a NEW user which I am not. The last comment you left here was a twisting of facts. I did nothing to offend you. All the time, you were attacking me and then you decide to wrongfully accuse me of attacking you. I demand an apology for this irrational behavior and the attacks against me. Heqong 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The evidence is provided right there and you are still saying that I twisted the facts? This is not acceptable, please stop.--Jerry 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to copy whatever I say. Have some originality. You sound like my long lost twin brother with your remarks. They are exact repeats of what I had previously said. Here are some insults, attacks, and accusations from above that you wrote. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heqong&diff=137986449&oldid=137985672 (Saying that I am a new user and making me feel bad about that. In reality, I am not new) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heqong&diff=137987513&oldid=137987072 (Quite sneaky of you to delete part of my comments. My eyes are now on your every move) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heqong&diff=137990695&oldid=137990681 (Me stating the facts of the case) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heqong&diff=137993962&oldid=137993511 (Unnecessary negative and sarcastic comments made against me by Jerry) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heqong&diff=138000781&oldid=138000114 (It was clear that Jerry was the attacker. Yet he tried to play dumb and insulted me further by leaving this comment. Who is attacking you? Please get a hold of yourself and stop making these insulting comments)

The first link was not an attack, it was just a clarification because you attacked me before that saying I was the one who came along and messed things up. The second link was an accident, I was just trying to copy your quote. The third link actually shows you attacking me, not stating any facts. I did not attack you in any way, would you please for the 5th time: Stop making false accusations? (I'm not even asking for apology)--Jerry 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, we can call it quits if you give me an apology. That is all. We can move on once you do that. Thanks :) Heqong 00:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing wrong at all. Can we move on now? Are you done?--Jerry 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry please look at the last comment that I made here. I said an apology. You did something wrong and all you need to do is give an apology and we can move on. Heqong 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I apologize if I've done nothing wrong at all?--Jerry 00:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan independence

Regarding this, where did you get that statement from?--Jerry 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China also administers the Fuchien islands. The Taiwan Independence folks do not want these to be incorporated into a Taiwan Republic. They only want all of Taiwan, not Fuchien as that is associated with China. Heqong 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that statement from?--Jerry 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that I read on Wikipedia Heqong 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which? Wikipedia should be verifiable.--Jerry 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was an article on either Kinmen or Mastsu. Heqong 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's called Original Research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.--Jerry 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on either Kinmen or Matsu. Check for yourself. Heqong 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're suppose to get a source from a site other than Wikipedia.--Jerry 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Aska Young

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Aska Young, by Eggy49er, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Aska Young seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Aska Young, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Aska Young itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Tseng Wen-hui

A tag has been placed on Tseng Wen-hui, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jerry 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE

I did not vandalize your user page.--Jerry 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heqong&diff=138033235&oldid=138023032

That was uncalled for. I am most definitely not a sock. I am Heqong by myself. Heqong 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, did I say you are a sock? I said you are suspected as a sock.--Jerry 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason for you to do that. That is regarded as vandalism. I am looking at your contributions record and I see that this is a common practice for YOU. But this is not good for Wikipedia therefore I am striking you down this time for this irresponsible practice. Heqong 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common practice for me? How?--Jerry 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU#Nationalist_.2F_TingMing

Since you are currently undergoing a checkuser request, placing the suspected sockpuppet tag on your userpage is not vandalism. Please do not issue vandalism warnings to other users for doing this. -- Merope 04:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected your userpage, since you seem intent on reverting it to make a point. -- Merope 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration committee has ruled that I can blank my user page. I have been through this before. I demand that you revert and unprotect my user page. You cannot abuse your power and attack me like that. That was uncalled for from an administrator.Heqong 05:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ArbCom case are you referring to, Heqong? I thought you were a new user... --Folic Acid 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually he had been blocked once before because of the arbitration ruling.--Jerry 16:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Loren 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Sock Puppet

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been wronged by a few people. Loren36 for example as I see on his record has attacked a user called TingMing and his sock puppets. Because of my pan-blue views, they persecuted me and Loren36 quickly moved to block me without cause. The probe came out "likely" which may be because that me and the other user are close in proximity in terms of geographical location but we are not the same person. TingMing's other sock puppets were immediately confirmed without doubt. I do not believe that Loren36 can be an impartial administrator. Likely does not mean confirmed. I have pan-blue views and you can see that I have been an editor at Wikipedia for more than a year, as opposed to TingMing who is rather new. You can see in my contributions history that I consistently have pan-blue and that is my personality and not someone else's as some people may claim. I returned to Wikipedia to try to help out and be a good member of the community. I had had some problems before a long time ago involving Ideogram, Nrtm81, etc. This has nothing to do with TingMing. I am not TingMing. I swear to God. I am not Nationalist or TingMing. I have been unfairly persecuted and targeted.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, really -- checkuser came up "likely," and your editing patterns do seem awfully similar to those of Nationalist, both in areas of interest and general style. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2007 (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.

Even if you are totally different people, your edit patterns (including your personal attacks) are harmful to Wikipedia. Therefore sock puppetry is not the only reason.--Jerry 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you see I was banned for sock puppetry. But I did not do that. I am sure if you allow me the chance I can contribute beneficially to Wikipedia. I am ready to engage in peaceful dialogue and discussion about articles. I have learned a lot since my last arbitration case a long long time ago. That is why I returned after much thinking. Heqong 18:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on this block is: I don't know if you are the sock of Nationalist or not, your edit patterns had been really aggressive, you attacked many people including me. I think it is needed for you to be blocked for at least two days to calm you down. Anyways, the decision has to be made by an administrator.--Jerry 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEllo yeah I know you. I checked your contribution and we were involved in the ROC portal like a long time ago. I might be wrong but I don't thin you're tingming or nationalist. Have they done an IP check or something? Blueshirts 07:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Loren 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says Heqong "not checked"? Blueshirts 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the line below that. Taken in context with virtually identical editing patterns and the long history of sockpuppetry in the archived section, I believe the evidence is overwhelming. I leave it to the reviewing admin to decide whether the block is justified. -Loren 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

An article that you have been involved in editing, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Heqong! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

James C. F. Huang - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]