User talk:Littlebutterfly

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Tibet, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Ave Caesar (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what primary and secondary mean? Yunfeng (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an idiotic question. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just call me a liar? That's rich, coming from a propagandist like you. Or am I automatically a liar because I'm not Chinese? You need to grow up. Yunfeng (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you did not read that book, because, if you did, you would not claim that the statement is not supported. You are called a liar because you told a lie. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! Break it up! LB, could you quote the part of the Laird source that you're using to support your claim over at the talk page? Then we all can evaluate it and see if it really does support that statement. LB, don't use edit summaries to attack other editors. If you're getting that upset, perhaps you need to take a wikibreak, since if you continue to make personal attacks you will be taking one whether you want to or not. Same for you Yunfeng. It doesn't help the situation for you to start name-calling back.--Gimme danger (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported here for edit-warring on the Tibet article and reverting four times in 24 hours. John Smith's (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly, note that the WP:3RR policy only allows for three-reversions (in whole or in part) to be made to any one article by any one individual within a 24 hour period. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on Tibet: 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.--Ave Caesar (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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. seicer | talk | contribs 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I spent quite a lot of time checking some statements in the Tibet article which appeared to me biased and/or very selective misuse of sources (leading to biased POVs). I even found a reference to an article by Parenti (but his name was not given - and there was no way of checking the reference if one did not happen to know the name of the article). I have repeatedly pointed out that he is a very unreliable source and there are gross historical errors in his article. I carefully said this when I removed the reference and told people to "see Discussion page of Tibet history for reasons" in case they wanted to know why I had removed it.

Although I have given good reasons for all my changes, you have taken it upon yourself to remove all the material I had added, even including direct well-referenced quotes and you even reinstated grammatical and spelling mistakes. Your only excuse for this drastic action was only to say: "Restore some sourced material to provde balance."

This is not only misleading, but a clear case of vandalism. If you do not agree with me on these issues you should make your positions clear on the Talk:Tibet before deleting my well-referenced material and corrections again.John Hill (talk) 02:13, 4 May 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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]