User talk:Blodance

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

GFW issues

{{

helpme

}} If I'm to access certain pages(e.g. Epoc* Times), I would need to use a proxy to override the Great Firewall, hence rendered unable to edit them(due to the usage of proxies). This is so frustrating(dude, it's really annoying of regularly getting 5-min blocks while trying to make some edit... and trying to use proxies did nothing but let me know that by no means could I edit them at all D= ) but I can't find a solution to this. Is it technically possible to solve this problem? I'm currently using random online proxies... Blodance (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blodance,

Did your read

Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall

? You can get an exemption from open proxies blocking.

If you already did, please re-active the helpme banner. Otherwise, try the contact link.

Hope it helps. Calimo (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the information, but I guess it's gonna take some time to edit 3000 times >_> Blodance (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you require 3000 edits? I don't think Wikipedia:IP block exemption says so. The question is, can you "be trusted not to abuse the right"? It's not to me to answer this question, but I think it's worth trying. Calimo (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant the requirement for

WP:IPBE, as the latter seems to be about unblocking a certain individual IP/IP range, which does not seem to be my case. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong plz :) Blodance (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If I understand

WP:IPBE correctly, it is about exempting a registered editor against all open proxies blocks, so you'd be allowed to edit from any proxy, but as I never tried myself I'm not sure of that. Calimo (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, sorri about that. It is about overriding all IP blocks for a registered user. I'll have a try - sent an email. I really appreciate your help :D Blodance (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and btw, do you know how long would it usu takes to receive a reply from the admins(or w/e)? I'm so glad that at least I've got some hope to get rid of this long-lasting problem. You know, if i ever try to access those "ZOMGANTICPC" pages(sometimes I don't even know why - it's hilarious that a PRC citizen being denied access to the article about PRC of an encyclopedia by his own gov't), it not only blocks me from accessing the page I'm requesting. It blocks me from accessing the whole Wikipedia... which really pisses me off. (And of course the article about PRC on Chinese Wikipedia is !@^#^*&#!@[expletive deleted] biased...)Blodance (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

I have granted your account an

full blocks affecting your IP address

when you are logged in.

Please read the page

IP block exemption conditions

.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. --Closedmouth (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've made a start on giving the article some shape. Hopefully we'll be able to save it from deletion. Another option is the article incubator if it gets deleted. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Akmal Shaikh

Can you try and keep your comments directly related to the improvemet of the article on Akmal Shaikh. "Personal positions" such as this aren't helpful in the article and are not appropriate on article talk pages. Thanks for you contribution to the article, but just try to stay on topic. Jolly Ω Janner 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I just eventually got involved in irrelevant discussions... I'll take even greater care from now on. Blodance (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article on Akmal Shaikh

Hey Blodance, I just wanted to thank you for the constructive approach you've taken on the article on Akmal Shaikh. I don't agree personally with all of your edits, but greatly appreciate your work on the article and your obvious good faith efforts preserve the neutrality of the article. Thanks! Spinner145 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude. :) Blodance (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you access the RS noticeboard - are you inside the PRC? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. :( Blodance (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help

Much appreciate the rapid response. I am tech not savvy. Mucho thanko.

Malke2010 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you

Thank you for your clear and cogent points made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Gospel (book). Much appreciated, Cirt (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

np, hope we can rescue it :) Blodance the Seeker 05:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of children of NBA MVP Players

Ask me) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Akmal Shaikh

Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 12:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, and thanks for the GA review on Akmal Shaikh. I was on a wikibreak to have the Chinese New Year holiday last week, so I did not see your message on my talk. Please kindly allow me a bit more time to fix the POV problem. Regards, Blodance the Seeker 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I've extended the hold for another seven days. I'll probably get involved a bit, but that depends on other commitments. SilkTork *^YES! 09:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly done on any major editing there. Looking forward to your input! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was considering how to improve the section. After the overhaul, its tone sounds well now, but my concern is, if you read thru the whole section, it is like... all about "to what extent is he mentally ill". That is, I failed to find strong claims from (presumably) Chinese sources that he is not mentally ill, which are needed to balance the section. The China Daily one sounds pretty weak, making the whole section seem unbalanced. I'll try and see if I can find other ones. Incidentally, the long paragraphs are a pain to read. Maybe breaking 'em up into sub-sections can help. (better with pics of course... but I've no idea what kind of pics would be appropriate) Blodance the Seeker 02:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to get feedback when editing alone. I'll have a think too about how that section sounds. As to the images, I see you added the heroin - not sure about that. Could perhaps have one of his grave... fair use, of course. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt if the fair use claim will stand... it would be "potentially replacable" since his grave still exists and is not barred from public access so one can always go there and take a photo. We got some Muslim grave pics in Islamic funeral but I'm still considering if it's neccessary. Also, I can't access your talk page - presumably because there's the keyword F41u|\| 90|\|9 on it. (sorry for the 1337speak...) Blodance the Seeker 11:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that they have refined their techniques - gone is the blanket site block, and that my page is one of those where fresh-water crustaceans reside. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Akmal Shaikh on hold

The GA review of the Akmal Shaikh article has been on hold for over 30 days. It is near to being passed, but the Akmal_Shaikh#Reaction section needs editing to reduce the amount of direct quotation as per Wikipedia:Quotations, and also to be trimmed in general to meet GA criteria 3(b): "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of
Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)
for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. William 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian military history in WWII talk page

Hi Blodance, I responded to your comment here. Apologies for the length. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Blodance. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]