User talk:J0ngM0ng

Welcome!

Hello, J0ngM0ng, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J0ngM0ng! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, can you link me where the ASM now recognizes two species of red panda? I know there was the paper last year, but nothing seems to have updated that I found to recognize the split. --PresN 22:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Here you go: [1] [2] J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! Guess we need to get the red panda updated to match. Thanks so much for your edits to the various mammal species lists! --PresN 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we do. Let's make a talk page discussion over on that page. And thanks, you too!!! J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:Can you make this edit on the Red Panda page as provided in the culture depictions (as part of the talk page for Red Panda ) - A cryptocurrency Ethereum Token - RedPanda Earth Token, uses red pandas as a mascot to raise cryptocurrency funds to save endangered species, adopt red pandas, and conserve wildlife. RedPanda Earth Token has also released non-fungible tokens or NFTs called Red Panda Pals to raise capital to donate to save red pandas RedPandaEarth (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC) RedPandaEarth (talk)

If you have a source, I can try. Why can't you do the edit yourself? J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It won't let me since it is a semi-locked page (Red Panda), says I need at least 10 edits to Wiki pages. This is the source - https://redpanda.earth/ and https://redpanda.earth/donation-tracker.html showing the Red Panda adoptions as well as the NFT collection indicating the purpose https://opensea.io/collection/red-panda-pals RedPandaEarth (talk)

Ten edits isn't much. Just edit a few pages and add it yourself. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JongMong, I'd like to resolve this issue but the dispute tag should stay until that's done. I've started a new section on the talk page to move this forward. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Ddum5347 (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

What? J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have questions as well, since I see another account with closely similar editing patterns. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good answer. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to understand who you're talking about. Since I have no idea where these accusations are even coming from. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddum5347, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. J0ngM0ng (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you regarding your non Notable and unsourced additions on the article Blading (professional wrestling),. I understand you are just a 2021 editor and are inexperienced but blading and causing to bleed the old hard way when blading did not exist are different. Please do not cause such unsourced edits and remember there is a WP:TRR regarding WP:EW. Either ways welcome to Wikipedia new editor. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are different, but bleeding the old way is still mentioned, and I placed it into an appropriate section. And I reverted your edits once, that is not edit warring by any means. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes J0ngM0ng and that is why Cena vs Lesnar is mentioned because it was the first case in a LONG time, that is getting busted the hard way. Howverer Orton vs Lesnar didn't happen after such a long span and these occur more frequently on other promotions that is why that information is not WP:Notable, see WP:HTRIVIA and Wikipedia:UNDUE. Trivial information are best avoided. If we include that, we can include 1000 others from different promotions. I mentioned edit warring because new users are prone to do it, but I am glad you are not one of them this was not a warning, just a simple notification. My best wishes for you. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being cordial. All the best to you. J0ngM0ng (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J0ngM0ng,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Notamacropus rufigriseus for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 ^Talk 18:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! J0ngM0ng (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss changes to the infobox and lede on Talk:Dingo; there's already been a bit of discussion regarding the varying views on taxonomy; please seek a consensus before changing the stable version of the page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Done. J0ngM0ng (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Donkey, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it disruptive? I just edited boldly. I'll add a source for it. But relax. J0ngM0ng (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source to support your claim ? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added. And it's not a claim. J0ngM0ng (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ddum5347 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddum5347. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ST47 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

J0ngM0ng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I had previously stated in the accusation thread, I have no relation whatsoever to the Ddum5347 account. I was only accused of being a sockpuppet because I edited some pages that the banned user seemed to frequent, and apparently have similar interests as them. In the short month or so that I have been editing (first without an account, then after creating one), I have not broken any of Wikipedia's rules willingly, and if I have, it has been accidental due to my being a novice. I additionally have made good and sourced edits regarding several topics, mostly taxonomy, and have reverted vandalism and unsourced materials, as well as gotten consensus to delete pages. I believe that if I am allowed to edit again, I will prove that I am NOT some suckpuppet, and am a valuable contributor to the site. Thank you for reading. J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, I find the evidence at the SPI convincing. Second, ... I mean, please, just saying you're not a sockpuppet is never going to get anyone unblocked. If you think about it, wouldn't everyone say that to get unblocked if we believed them? And then what would be the point of even having an anti-sockpuppetry policy? Especially when users using that approach admit that they "edited some pages that the banned user seemed to frequent, and apparently have similar interests as them." Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2021 (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.