User talk:Xinyu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia! 2 Secret Society of the Dark Light 3 Whiteblack 4 AfD Nomination Whiteblack 5 Oldspeak (Traditional English) 6 Whiteblack 7 11 (numerology) 8 Vandalism 9 Blocked 10 Numerology articles 11 I would be glad to help with the 13 Bloodlines article 12 Hey, I need your help with what might be Vandalism 13 You are not an administrator 14 List of colors 15 My Vow and Oath to Wikipedia 16 Message delivered and Thank you 17 re: your comment on my talk page 18 13 Illuminati Bloodlines 19 Removing AfD tags 20 Civility

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Xinyu! Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Xinyu, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Society of the Dark Light

Secret Society of the Dark Light has been proposed for deletion. Please add some content if you would like the article to be kept. Don't delete the text yourself if you don't want it kept, just add {{db-author}} to the top of the article. NickelShoe 06:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteblack

Regarding Whiteblack, is the word really used like that? (Where?) —xyzzy_n 02:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a collection of neologisms. I share your fascination with newspeak to some extent, but this is not the right place to create a dictionary of it. —xyzzy_n 02:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Neologism, Newspeak, I just feel that although this may not the right place to fit in some interesting, orginal, logical, almost implicit ideas of life - we should take a stand on what we believe. What do you say? Please, reply. I know I am rebel, but neologism is a cool term to describe my, no, our attraction to doublethink. Time to put doublethink to practise. Please, don't delete my article, it's so good - we could collaborate to make it more, "real," and less like a, "dictionary." Please? Sorry, but given that you have just invented the term, it really does not belong here. You will almost certainly not be able to fulfil WP:OR and WP:V, which means that even without my intervention (by the way, I can’t actually delete articles—only admins can do that), the probability of the article surviving on Wikipedia monotonically approaches zero over time. The same goes for Feelthink and Thinkfeel. This doesn’t mean that the articles are wrong, bad or anything like that, only that they should be posted elsewhere. For wikis which do allow original research, see WP:OR#Other_options. I know the no original research policy can be frustrating, but please understand that it’s necessary to establish Wikipedia as a reliable source of encyclopedic information (which generally does not include the results of linguistic games). If you want to create an article and are not sure whether it meets the standard, you could, as a rule of thumb, try to find references for the article’s subject before creating it. If you do find references, you can cite them in the article to prevent the impression of original research. If you can’t find any, then reconsider whether the article belongs on Wikipedia. Finally, on the topic of being a rebel, please keep in mind WP:POINT. —xyzzy_n 03:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I don't know you, though. I know - could we at least try to keep those articles - not that people have to absolutely look at them - i know, place them in a place called, "The Rebels Den." The Rebellopedia - the place for anarcho-wikipedians. Thanks. Please do me this favour - I am a philosopher you know - philosophers are pretty much neologicians anyways.

‘Rebellopedia’ sounds good. Consider starting it at Wikia (or some similar place). Nevertheless, the articles will simply not stand here unless you can make them meet the standard for inclusion. Do you see a way to do that? Otherwise, they’re going to end up on AfD sooner or later; that’s the most resource-intensive way of deleting articles. —xyzzy_n 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot, person. You must have a lot of resources to be able to, "assist" others, those who are in dire life support on wikipedia. Like myself, for example. Literally, this place is like a home, and a school of knowlege -- too bad there is too many rules - i understand though. Nay, rebebllopedia sounds too gay - I need a btr name - perhaps the philopedia? Please, reply to me with your suggestion, soon. Thanks for the resources, and I'll do what I can to make my sources sound less neologistic, and more, "logistical." haha. Thanks again. user:Xinyu

Er, sorry. No resources whatsoever here, only stuff gathered from reading policies, guidelines etc. Frankly, if you had read and heeded the pages to which the welcome message on top of this page links, this discussion would have been unnecessary. As for the name, I have no idea. —xyzzy_n 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more notes:

• Please sign your posts on talk pages.
• You’re not supposed to remove the speedy deletion template from pages you have created. Or, at least, that’s what the template says.

—xyzzy_n 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)~ Xinyu Here, I think this is right? is it?

[edit] AfD Nomination Whiteblack

I've nominated the article Whiteblack for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Whiteblack satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteblack. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Whiteblack during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. NatusRoma | Talk 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

: Very well - let the discussions continue, and I'll continue working on the article? all right? I know, I like to debate - my bad sometimes. I understand all the rules, but it seems some rules are just not meant to be broken, are they? Nevermind, I won't ramble on any further - however, I'll still have my stand on the matter. I am not giving up on the discussion, debate, concensus of the article Whiteblack. Sure, you people are right - but is always something new, a bad thing? --Lord X 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu + - ::Yes, you may certainly continue to work on the article. By the way, for similar reasons, I have also nominated feelthink for deletion. I have bundled the two nominations together, so you can discuss both articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteblack. NatusRoma | Talk 02:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks, what could I say? Seems like I got more problems than solutions originally intended? Funny...how ideas are never accepted by everyone at first. Surely the discussions would eventually turn out well:)Popular culture...what could you do about it? Well, thanks for your concern. --Lord X 02:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)user:Xinyu

[edit] Oldspeak (Traditional English)

Talk on the the Newspeak discussion page, if you want. Also, if you want to know, on the wiki editing toolbar the third button from the right is the signature button. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks for your comments, and I'll surely be on in the battlefield of Newspeak, and Oldspeak! --Lord X 01:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

[edit] Whiteblack

I have reverted your edits to the colour coordinates box in White; your values were wrong. Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. Also, please remember to provide edit summaries. —xyzzy_n 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) On an unrelated note, could you please consider deleting or moving User:L O R D X101? If you need such a page, you can create one in your user space, e. g. as User:Xinyu/L O R D X101. As it is, the page is quite out of place; it is supposed to be the user page of a user by name of ‘L O R D X101’, and no such account exists. To delete the page, place the {{db-author}} template on it to ask an administrator to delete it; to move the page, use the move button, then delete the original page (which will contain only a redirect) as above. —xyzzy_n 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) : On a yet further note, when did you become an administrator? —xyzzy_n 08:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 (numerology)

Please don't copy and paste from other websites. Copyright violations are illegal for Wikipedia to have. If you have done this before please go back and remove that text. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't repost the article. And don't remove these warnings. It is considered vandalism. Continue on this way and you may be blocked. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why I can't I vandalize my own homepage? What do you call that? I want back my FREEDOM! --Lord X 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Please stop recreating the talk page. Copyright violations are not "intellectual freedom". CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

What is freedom then? Then we have no freedom. Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 and 2 makes whatever you want. --Lord X 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

{{unblock|I wish to use the original article from the internet, and then recreate it, using my own wordings - that is allowed, isn't it?}}

No, it isn't. Rewriting somebody's work in your own words is still plagiarism.--Shanel ^§ 02:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

stop being so conforming person, don't you know that all rules are made to be broken? Lord X 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)User;Xinyu ps. where is the individuality?

[edit] Blocked

That's it- after recreating 11 (numerology) several times after warnings and even after I protected it, you went too far by creating 11 (NUMEROLOGY). You are blocked for 24 hours. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|i am nicer now...so, could i please start over from sratch?}}

When the block expires you can. --pgk^(talk) 21:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numerology articles

No one can stop you from writing on these subjects; I just deleted things that met Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Deleting an article that says, "Please let me write this article" wasn't to prohibit an article with that title from ever being written; it's just that that particular version wasn't really an article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what do you mean that "most" of it was written by yourself? You didn't still copy some of it, did you? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't copy down the original thing, and just threw them on the page, I instead cited it. Just go on to their respective pages and see...and could it be possible to remove the DO NOT REMAKE THIS PAGE on 11 (numerology)? That article is, by nature, 11 (NUMEROLOGY)...? Also, remember, I cited whatever the internet wrote, pretty much 99% was written by myself, but I needed some sources anyways to support my point. I don't think the articles do fully meet the NPOV thing...do they, or do they not? --Lord X 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Sources usually don’t meet NPOV; that’s because they’re sources, and thus not subject to Wikipedia’s policies.

What is instead required of sources is that they be reliable, and, as far as I can tell, your sources are not. You need to find (better) sources for the articles.

As for NPOV, I miss, in particular, the view that 11, 22 and 33 are not significant. I happen to hold this view and I think it’s probable that you will find others. In their current form, the articles present belief as fact; it would be better to present belief as belief, and attribute it to those who hold it. This is best done by reference to sources (see above) and careful writing. For example (and only for example), instead of

‘This number is extremely unstable.’,

you might write

‘In Foobarian canon, which is also accepted by some Quxians, this number is called unstable.’

and append some references.

By the way, terms like ‘unstable’ should be explained or linked to relevant articles. With any of its usual meanings, ‘unstable’ doesn’t seem to relate to 11.

I hope that helps. —xyzzy_n 22:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would be glad to help with the 13 Bloodlines article

Hey, this is ProfessorPaul. I would be glad to help you with the Illuminati 13 bloodlines article (maybe you could put some text in the sandbox; I could review it). I had another idea, also. In 2004, I discovered that Bush and Kerry are related. Here is the link from MSN Ancestry.com [1]. This fact would seem to add weight (perhaps a small amount of weight) to the people who say that a small number of families control the world. User:ProfessorPaul 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Welcome to the Project - still, though - tyr to find other people willing to help, especially those involved with the conspiracy theory article, other administrators, and newbies...thanks for helping me out! You're the first, but not the last. You deserve a barn star1 --Lord X 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu.

Once again, thanks Professor Paul. ps. But Bush and Kerry are just offshoots of the larger 13 illuminati bloodlines...much reading, research, and NPOV writing is required. --Lord X 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu.

[edit] Hey, I need your help with what might be Vandalism

Hey, I noticed that you are a Wikipedia Administrator; I would like to ask your assistance with what (I believe) may be Vandalism. I have been working on The Twilight Zone episode articles (expanding them, especially the "Themes" category). I also created the new Wiki Category:The Twilight Zone actors. There seems to be a new Wiki user "216.244.12.76" who is going through ALL of The Twilight Zone episode articles and deleting the "Themes" category. He may have good intentions, but I think this may be vandalism. Can you help me to investigate? User:ProfessorPaul01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem...--Lord X 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

[edit] You are not an administrator

I've removed that template from your userpage twice now and most recently, you have added yourself to the list of administrators. According to special:listusers, you are not an administrator. (If you were (sysop) would appear after your name). Please stop. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not you can become an administrator would be up for the community to decide, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, Xinyu, I’d like to suggest that you amend your notices addressed to User:216.244.12.76 with respect to this issue. —xyzzy_n 16:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Would you kindly stop asserting that you are or were an administrator? Your message to User:216.244.12.76 was not very polite; that you now have added another falsehood does not do much to improve it. —xyzzy_n 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not you explain to me how I was not impolite? I was (merely) doing my (self-proclaimed) job...besides, I was pissed off a more SEVERE vandalizer than myself, wasn't I? Sides, since he doesn't even reply, would it make any difference to the fact that he has been vandalizing more than I have? Okay, fine, I'd take away the (or was) part of my intervention as you say...sides, makes no difference to me (indifference is power)....--Lord X 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Forget it, I rewrote the whole message in one sweet-ass sentence instead. --Lord X 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Xinyu

Whether or not the user to whom you are writing has engaged in vandalism is irrelevant. Notices and warnings about vandalism can still be expressed civilly. As for your rewrite, it is an improvement. However, did you really mean to write ‘"vandalism" from ProfesorPaul’ (sic)? —xyzzy_n 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of colors

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to List of colors. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. —xyzzy_n 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fine, whatever...I give you people all your respective powers back, and I'll refrain from beating up the other Wikipedian (at least psychologicalyly) over the episode thingy-michigy at that w/e site that is called...--Lord X 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu.

ps. It wasn't vandalism, I just thought that the colors of cinnamon and chocolate didn't look right, that was all. --Lord X 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

You did not change the actual colours, but you changed the subsequent data so that they became inconsistent and this is the second time you did this to an article on colours. Please don’t do it again. —xyzzy_n 17:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Vow and Oath to Wikipedia

Okay, so, I have messed around with the administration several times. First, with neologism, second with self-proclaimed administrator, and third with copyvio. First, I must say, I apologize to all collaborators who are currently working with me, and who now probably doesn't trust me any longer. Secondly, I hope that all my collaborators are able to reconcile for my vices, and rulebreaking status, currently. Once again, I am really sorry for what I have done. Thirdly, and lastly, please realize that I am not the most perfect human being alive on the planet, and that I would not cause any more disasters, vandalize (as they say), and create all out mayhem. This is my vow: That I would be the best, most rule-abiding Wikipedian possible. Thank you. Please trust me out on this one. --Lord X 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Well, this didn’t last very long. —xyzzy_n 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message delivered and Thank you

Hey, this is User:ProfessorPaul, and I just wanted to tell you that I delivered the message you left me to the talk page of User:216.244.12.76. I have left a message there before--and got no reponse. We'll wait and see, I suppose.  :) User:ProfessorPaul00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem.--Lord X 01:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

[edit] re: your comment on my talk page

I replied on Talk:Doublethink, which is really where the discussion belongs as opposed to on your talk page.

As a side note, I notice you've got a "this page is protected" template on the top of your user page. It doesn't seem protected to me, since I can edit it. That template is only supposed to be put on a page that really is protected, and pages are very rarely protected on Wikipedia. I'll bring it up on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection since I don't know how to check to see if a page is protected, but if your page really isn't protected you should remove that template.

Hbackman 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 13 Illuminati Bloodlines

Please do not remove AfD notices from articles, as you did to 13 Illuminati Bloodlines. It does not prevent the process from going ahead, and may prevent supporters of the article from entering the debate. Kevin 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea of an AfD was based on your opinion, contrary to the facts - so it does not deserve to be deleted.--Lord X 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

It was my opinion that the community should express their opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. Regardless, Wikipedia policy states that AfD notices are not to be removed until the debate is completed. Kevin 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just look at my sources instead of thinking, "oh, this isn't compatible," or, "oh, no NPOV," or, "not Verifiable, not facts, lunatic ideas." Stop complaining on behalf of millions of users, and the policy. I don't care what you do, express your own goddamn mind.--Lord X 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

All policies are made to be broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xinyu (talk • contribs) .

Do not remove any other maintenance tags on the page either. (ie {{verify}},{{disputed}})--Konstable 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason why you are soooooooo successful in society today is because you follow the rules of the game...soon, someone is gonna break it, and that PERSON IS ME! --Lord X 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

[edit] Removing AfD tags

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Konstable 00:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13 Illuminati Bloodlines. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! —xyzzy_n 06:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I give up (not Wikipedia though!)...and while I have been, "UNCIVIL" is I am frustrated with everyone's lack of faith in me. Don't they see that IT TAKES TIME and EFFORT to find reliable sources...? Why can't you even understand for crying out loud. Okay, I take back everything I said to everyone I insulted in anyway. Don't take my words literally though, I am not a literal person just to let you know. I am darn seious when I have to be, and I am serious, I am going to find reliable sources for it when I DO HAVE TIME...so, now make up your mind for it? Once again, I have disappointed the Wikicommunity, and the Wikiempire, I have been, "ARROGANT," and I apologize...and I mean it.--Lord X 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Why don’t you postpone creating articles on obscure topics until you find references for them? You could still write drafts on subpages in your user space and move them into the main namespace as you find enough references to avoid deletion.

As for your promise to become serious, I, for one, was extremely skeptical the last time you made it; frankly, you are not being very convincing now. Maybe if you acted in accordance with the current norms instead of just making occasional promises, you would find more good will around here. —xyzzy_n 23:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll comply...I'd just write them out on my user space, that way, nobody could just say, "SHUT IT OUT..." or something along those lines...oh well, MUST TRY TO BE MORE CIVILIZED, and WIKIFIED (hard to do, but worth doing)...thanks for understanding...--Lord X 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons: Collateral damage from block of 72.14.194.31 sidestepped. Logged-in editors can now edit freely. Request handled by: ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|72.14.194.31|please log in if you wish to edit, thank you}}

Added some nowiki tags, as the request appears to have been taken care of. Please try a simple edit -- say, at the sandbox -- to verify if this is the case or not. If you're able to edit, good; if not, go ahead and try another template. Thanks for your time and patience. Luna Santin 01:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)