Cedric tsan cantonais

Welcome!

Hello, Cedric tsan cantonais! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Fair use images outside of articles

Please refrain from adding images used under a claim of fair use (usually referred to as "non-free" on Wikipedia) to pages other than articles. Please see WP:NFCC#9 for the rule. All non-free images in any page that is not in article space are to be summarily removed. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Captains

If you want one team in your league to be decorated differently than others, feel free to. Please don't push your preference on other leagues. Discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mein Herr, I can't believe you're willing to bend in to those irrelevant North American rules. Still, if you want me to discuss, I'll do it.Cedric tsan cantonais 16:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

First, they're not rules, they're conventions. Not all European teams decorate their rosters with captains.

Second, you would have to prove that the individual you're decorating with the captaincy is actually the captain. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/wfc2/wfc2-players does not list the captain.

Third, yes, you should discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IIHF archived articles

thought I would let you know that the issue you had is browser related, if you access the same page with IE or Chrome wikipedia will have no trouble with the URL. I ran into the same issue previously and there is a simple fix in the script of the address but I forget what it is. If I remember I will let you know.18abruce (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

here it is, look in your address, replace [tt_news] with %5Btt_news%5D. It will link just fine. I do believe an article about world girls day is merited, while an article on the the vancouver angels is not though, good luck.18abruce (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cedric tsan cantonais. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi. I realize you've already received complaints about this, but I make one last request here. Wikipedia:Signatures states that the purpose of signatures are to identify you as a user and your contributions to Wikipedia, and that in general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either. The username policy prohibits disruptive usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.

Your signature currently says "CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS!". This signature is not in line with the purpose of signatures, as it seems to promote a particular point of view that you have—that editors should not be allowed to contribute with an IP address. Current English Wikipedia policy and practice allows for anonymous IP editing (and remember, IPs are human too). This means that your signature automatically puts you in unnecessary conflict with our anonymous editors—a violation of WP:CIVIL. In other words, having your signature as it is right now will make participating in harmonious discussions with anonymous editors very difficult, as we already see on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey). As a result, you need to change your signature. I have no problem with you proposing to the English Wikipedia community that anonymous editing be disabled, but your signature is not the place to do it. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VancouverAngels.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VancouverAngels.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Diacritics discussion

PBS, Fyunck, WhatamIdoing and a few others aside the encyclopedia accepts and uses diacritics. Do you know of any article which doesn't? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note Cedric, referring to an agreement you dislike as "BIGOTED", and whining about "ANTI-DIACRITIC CRUSADES" when you are on a "pro-diacritic crusade" yourself is both hypocritical and bordering on a personal attack. If you wish to build support for your position, try behaving like an adult. Resolute 15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. It's not me on a "pro-diacritic crusade". It's just that non-English names shall not be governed by English-centric rules like that bigoted "Convention №. 2". Or do you think the Wikipedia is still in ye olde colonial days, when the British Privy Council could veto a Québec court ruling?

Also, just in case you didn't notice, good sir, the use of diacritics is more serious than rock bands adding diacritics to their names, and we the supporters of diacritics bear twice the pressure you opposers bear and do more than twice the research you opposers do because we need to ensure that the diacritics are used correctly and properly. In most cases, that means having to venture into territories as unfamiliar as the Mariana Trench or Olympus Mons. Any false move would be ground for opposers to pick us up. If you would ever think that eliminating diacritics is even one thousandth as gutsy as venturing into unfamiliar territories like the Polypterī, please think again. Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I support the use of diacritics. But you are behaving like an immature child throwing a tantrum, and it makes it damn hard to want to side with you on anything. Zealots such as yourself are a net negative to this project. Resolute 15:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's make a deal here: I'll hold back all my future offences if you, good sir, openly state that you oppose "Convention №. 2". And don't worry, I'm not about to start any editing war unless someone else starts and editing war against my constructive edits. Cédric ^{SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades!} 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't personally enforced that convention in years. But I appreciate your willingness to tone it down a little. Resolute 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your attention please

Hi. I added subsections at my proposal to differentiate between opposition on technical grounds, and opposition in principal. Would you please move your opposition to the most suitable section? Thanks. fredgandt 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Whitecaps FC 2. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cedric tsan cantonais. You have new messages at Laberkiste's talk page.
Message added 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laber□^T 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hijiri88 pinged me in that talk going on at ANI. I can't really follow the detail of what's going on and I don't know the context and haven't been watching this. I am sure Hijiri88 is joking not attacking me - I like Hijiri88 was one of the editors supporting the restoration of Czech and so on names after efforts to "Anglicize" them by a minority of Tennis editors. And again restoration of Vietnam articles after a similar actions by one editor who moved the entire Vietnam article corpus. And has since been banned. I cannot follow what Walter Görlitz position or lack of position is, but don't see a problem. I suggest just smoothing it all over if that is possible. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Diacritics

Hardly going to argue much about the wording of your own template, but what conventions are you citing? The wording change in question would address them if they exist, and any that people would want to impose. I.e., "any" is more inclusive.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruption, following the clear consensus here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

 ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not guilty of either violation that Walter Görlitz accused me of. I have not attacked anyone since April (and of course not in the edit in which Walter Görlitz wrongfully accused me of attacking an IP) and I did not blank any page. All the accused "battleground behaviours" are the direct and indisputable result of Walter Görlitz's and Hijiri88's wrongful and possibly malicious accusations. If this was a retro-active punishment for April, then so be it. But Walter Görlitz must go down for wrongfully accusing me of attacking an IP while all I did was saying "suspected vandalism" due to the fact that the IP did not add any references to his/her edit. Also, I refused to be tried by popularity contests. I demand an arbitration. I aslo demand that Walter Görlitz and Hijiri88 recuse themselves from the arbitration. —Cédric the wrongfully recused 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The consensus is pretty conclusive, and you have not addressed your behaviour that led to it. And you don't get to simply refuse to accept consensus here. You can try contacting the Arbitration Committee if you really want to (link below), but I wouldn't get your hopes up unless you change your approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

I couldn't care less who's right and who's wrong, and have no interest in your case; what I see is that every single person to express an opinion regarding you has concurred that the most appropriate course of action is an indefinite block. Unfortunately, you don't get to "refuse to be tried by popularity contests", since consensus is a core Wikipedia policy; if you just want a free space to vent about how you're right and every other person in the world is wrong, I'm sure you can manage to locate Wordpress. If you insist the arbitration committee get involved, fill your boots, but I'll warn you they'll take a considerably less lenient view of this situation than I have; you'll note that at present you're still able to post unblock requests, still able to comment on your own talk page, still able to send emails and only blocked indefinitely, not permanently. ‑ Iridescent 22:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Then so be it. Sonner or later I'll locate an admin who will take another look on the case. Thank you for your time. Cédric the wrongfully recused 22:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Cedric, if it's really your desire to ever contribute to Wikipedia again, and all the stuff about diacritics and edit summaries is a big misunderstanding, then please STOP NOW. You're now WP:FORUMSHOPPING and hoping for a WP:WHEELWAR, and that's not going to happen. Think about what you have done to lead to this block, and when you can make another unblock request acknowledging that -- no sooner than one week from now -- make another request. If you instead post another request like the one above, then that will likely be the end of your participation here permanently. EEng 22:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No admin has the authority to unilaterally overturn a community imposed indefinite block. That is a blatant violation of [WP:WHEELWAR] and any admin who unblocks you is liable for a desysop. Your only recourse is a community appeal, which is guaranteed to fail at this juncture, or an appeal via the Arbitration Committee, who would most likely reject the case as it is a community imposed case and would refer it back for community review anyway. The only way ArbCom would review would be if there was a fundamental misapplication of process, which in this case there wasn't. There was unanimous community consensus for the indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng, Blackmane, and Boing! said Zebedee: For the record:

1. Just because I'm looking for an admin who will "take another look at the case" does not mean that I will make this admin break any rules. I don't know where the misunderstanding originated, but if you think for a moment that I would make anyone break the rules, you have another thinking coming.
2. All I will seek is to clear my name from wrongful accusers through an unblock. After that, I have no desire to be a frequent editor (but that doesn't mean I'll start stirring sh#t up, for the record) on English WP 'cause the culture here clearly doesn't honour technocracy, and all I would be doing here will be minor clean-ups or removing contents that are proved false. You want me to stop attacking others, I'm already doing that until a wrongful accusation (which says that "suspected vandalism" counts as a personal attack) unilaterally provoked me. You want me to stop using IPA in edit summaries, fair enough, I'll stop, but only as a measure of proving that "all the stuff about diacritics and edit summaries is (indeed) a big misunderstanding" and that Walter Görlitz's accusations against me are anything but legit.

Also, I would like to notify you that the first thing I'll do after I'm unblocked is to motion an amendment to WP:BATTLEGROUND and the sole aim of my motion is to make false accusers held equally accountable as the user(s) they provoked into displaying battleground behaviours. Let's be honest: Who would ever want to swallow false accusations? Cédric the wrongfully recused 19:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:STICK. I understand there's another Wikimedia project you're involved in. Go work on that, then after a year come back and reread what went on here. If you're able to see things in a new light, then maybe you'll be able to resume participating. With your current attitude there's zero chance of your being unblocked, and I mean zero. I realize this is hard to understand, but you need to trust us on this. EEng 20:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm afraid I can't understand what you mean by "see[ing] things in a new light". I have already promised to stop adding diacritics and to stop attacking others and I have in fact stopped attacking others. Cédric the wrongfully recused 22:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

But you're still insisting on vindication for something someone said which no one but you even remembers. That's never going to happen. If I demanded that for every stupid thing someone ever said about me, Arbcom would be busy until the universe runs cold. Read my talk page if you don't believe me. EEng 22:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: So you're basically saying that I shan't even demand to clear my name... That's just another reason for me not to be an active contributor on English WP after I get myself unblocked. On all other Wikis where I contribute on a regular basis, when I get wrongfully accused, the action of defending myself would never be deemed as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Even when the accuser is an admin, they would at least admit that they got it wrong when it's clear that I got wrongfully accused.

If you think I should stop demanding a vindication, fine, I'll swallow the verdict.

Also, let me clarify something further: When I said I would "look for an admin who will take another look at the case", all I sought was for this admin to say "the consensus did get it wrong". That's it. No WP:WHEELWAR. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 19:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you should stop demanding vindication. Wikipedia's processes are designed to get people back to editing, not settle scores and salve hurt feelings. EEng 21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're down a very big hole and yet you're uselessly trying to dig up out of it. Please take a read of WP:HOTHEAD and think about how it might apply to your situation. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Twitbookspacetube: You do not understand what had transpired between Hijiri88 and I. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 01:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been reading this dispute since before your current block. I very much do understand what is going on here and I also know that if you violate WP:NPA again ("are you done humpty-dumptying?") you'll have your talk page access revoked by one of the many admins watching this talk page. I want to see you unblocked and returned to editing productively. But that won't happen unless you realise it was your behaviour that caused your block. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Twitbookspacetube: With all due respect, when I use the term "humpty-dumpty", the reference is clearly "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" — In other words, Hijiri88 has been intentionally making up meanings that simply don't exist in my words. If I was to attack Hijiri88 based on his/her appearance, background, etc., I would've used other more blatantly derogatory terms. But I didn't, did I? I'm telling you politely: If you think for a moment that that was a personal attack, you've added yourself to the long list of people who had misunderstood me. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

First, stop pinging me, I am watching this talk page and will know when you reply. Second, you are attempting to wikilawyer your way out of admitting that what you wrote could be interpreted as a personal attack. Third, you are actively refusing to look at the situation with the view that your behaviour in response to the false accusation is what led to the block. If you had ignored it and moved on, you would not have been blocked, but instead you chose to raise it at ANI which obviously boomeranged hard leading to the situation you find yourself in. Once you raised the issue at ANI, everyone reading it looked into the interactions between the two of you and saw that your behaviour has been repeatedly disruptive and your use of "gibberish" compounded the issue. The only way you will be unblocked is if you stop talking about the accusation and instead focus on your behaviour in response to it, which is what got you here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So anything that could be interpreted as personal attacks will be interpreted as a personal attack... Fine, I can work with that. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 06:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Cedric tsan cantonais:I think you are misunderstanding the power and the responsibilities of admins here. When an admin closes a community proposal for a sanction, all they are allowed to do is assess what the actual consensus is, and not whether that consensus is correct. In this case, the consensus is unanimously behind a block, and no admin could possibly have closed it any other way.

  Your complaint appears to be that the community consensus got it wrong, but that is not a judgment that is open to admins to make. I see only two ways in which you could get that community discussion overturned:

  One is to appeal to the community again, by requesting a new review of the case (which would be held at WP:AN, I guess). I don't think that would stand any chance of success right now, so soon after the current decision. You might stand a better chance by waiting for at least the usual six-month WP:OFFER period and then asking for a new review.

  Alternatively, you could appeal to Arbcom. But as has been suggested, I also suspect they would be very reluctant to get involved at this stage unless there has been some procedural error - and there has not been one that I can see.

  I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but I hope it does at least help you understand why no admin can do what you appear to want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, many unanswered users supported an indefinite block for you. I was not involved in the ANI although I followed it and I couldn't see any procedural inconsistency. Even if you could convince an admin to review the case all they would advise is that it be taken to WP:AN for community review, because it is a community imposed sanction. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And why should I even trust you? Ever since we crossed paths, all you did you intentionally misinterpret my words to the point that I simply had to fight back and doing everything you could possibly do to get me blocked. And now you say you're giving me advice on how to get unblocked? Not even Lee Harvey Oswald would take the bait. Alas, I even suspect that this entire "advice" thing is a trap: Nobody knows better than you that wrongful accusations are the easiest way to trigger my DEFCON, and when I decide to fight back, anyone could easily accuse me of "displaying battleground behaviour" because of certain stupid culture on English WP that encourages swallowing accusations and frowns upon defending one's name.

Also, you're still insisting that I'm "continu[ing] to host (attacks on IPs) on (my) user page". That only further shows that you're in fact making up reasons to keep me blocked instead of giving me any real advices of getting unblocked. Just because I campaign for an all-registered Wikipedia does not mean such campaign is an automatic attack on IPs, except in your straw-man arguments.

Finally, when you left your first message, I had already warned you that you're a persona non grata here and your messages will be deleted. So how about we have a little armistice which we're at it: I say away from your talk page and you stay away from mine? 'Cause it's clear that your presence would only muddle the water even more. So let's not turn this into another Tenerife disaster, OK? Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Both of you, stop talking to each other. Hijiri88, stay away from this talk page as requested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. This user can't move on when reminders of the past are given frequently. Cedric, you are free to remove comments as you please, as long as the block notice remains intact. While you are confined here for now, it's still YOUR talk page. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am appealing to have my sentence reduced from "indefinite" to one year, for the following reasons:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries.
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications.
I have already stated that I have no intention to be an frequent editor of English Wikipedia, due to irreconcilable differences between my beliefs and English Wikipedia's mainstream culture.

Decline reason:

Firstly, you don't request to be unblocked now. Secondly, if there are "irreconcilable differences between [your] beliefs and English Wikipedia's mainstream culture", this clearly is not the project for you. Huon (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

• The block is not infinite, it is indefinite, which means it's for an as-yet-undetermined time (rather than forever). If you want to be unblocked after a year (or however long), you are free to make an unblock request at that time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: It's one thing to reject my appeal for technical reasons, but it's something completely different to reject my appeal simply because I expressed my disagreement with the culture of English Wikipedia. Expressing disagreement with the culture and actually breaking rules are two different things. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You didn't just express disagreement with the culture of English Wikipedia, you said there are irreconcilable differences. For you to edit here without breaking the rules would require some degree of reconciliation, and you have said that is impossible, therefore you contradict yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a collaborative environment. If your beliefs cannot be reconciled with this environment (and its culture), that will cause just the kind of disruption that saw you blocked in the first place. Huon (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already made every effort to reconcile in the dialogues above. What else do you want to see? You want me to stop personal attacks, I've already stopped. You want me to discuss in the cases of disputes, I talk. But do I also have to say that "I whole-heartedly support the culture of suppressing anyone's effort to clear their names"? 'Cause that is the only one thing I simply can't reconcile to. In nearly all other Wiki projects that I contribute on, even an admin would have to acknowledge "the fault is on me" when they find out they've wrongfully accused anyone. English Wikipedia is the only Wiki Project I know to openly tell users to just swallow it. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 17:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:IBAN

@Boing! said Zebedee, Blackmane, and EEng: I hereby request your help demanding an WP:IBAN between Hijiri88 and I, based on the following grounds:

1. Ever since our first encounter, Hijiri88 has been intentionally misinterpreting my words and adding new (mostly wrongful) accusations against me based on his/her twisted interpretations;
2. Even after I got block, he continued to provoke me into further DEFCON actions by continuing to twist my words.

Since WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits me from declaring a full-out war against anyone, I think the best action will be an IBAN just to make sure the ceasefire between Hijiri88 and I remains effective. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 18:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, if BATTLEGROUND didn't prohibit you, would it be your inclination to declare a full-out war?
• Since you're blocked, where is this conflict going on?

EEng 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is "not until there are absolutely no other choices". Even if BATTLEGROUND didn't prohibit me, declaring a full-out war is only a last-second measure if Hijiri88 won't stop intentionally misinterpreting me. And no, that doesn't mean I'll initiate an edit war (or any other kind of war) against Hijiri88's edits for no reason at all. That only means that I'll stop automatically assuming good faith in his edits, which could be considered an equivalent of a war on Wikipedia.

The answer to your 2nd question is: The conflict was still going on on this very page after I was blocked. Please feel free to check the edit histories. Also, as you will see in the edit history, all Hijiri88 cared about was that "how many reverts I made" rather than "how many of those reverts were proven to be good edits", which is another clue that led me to conclude that his only purpose is simply to take me down and make me look dirty. Cédric ^{(the wrongfully recused)} 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri's last edit to this page was January 5 [1], and your answer to my question about "war" is astounding. Christ, you've even made your signature say The wrongfully recused. Until you can get past your preoccupation with things that happened long ago, you're of no use to the project. EEng 19:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How is that "astounding" if I said I'll avoid declaring wars at all cost until there're absolutely no other choices? Cédric 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Because you're saying you'll declare war if you can't get what you want some other way. EEng 19:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

All I want to prevent the same kinds of conflict from happening again. That being said, no normal person can take infinite amount of false accusations without defending oneself. Just because I declared that I will no longer seek vindication for old beef cannot mean that anyone can force-feed me new beef. I'm doing my part preventing future conflicts. Hijiri88 needs to do his/her part. Cédric 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• You and Hijiri88 had an exchange here in early January when things were a bit hot on both sides, but Hijiri88 has not commented here since. As you are blocked, there can't be any other dialog between the two of you anywhere else, and so there's no justification whatsoever for an IBAN that I can see. Please do not ping me again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)