Jameslwoodward老屈是傀儡而封禁 edit

  Oppose I can't read the request above and Google translate does not make of sense out of it, but after I blocked this account, my CU colleagues at WP:EN have brought it to my attention that this account has a bad history there as well as here. I see no reason to change the block. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Jameslwoodward: : He is talking in Cantonese, from what I can understand, he meant to say: "I am not Wing1990hk! Check my contribution and his and you can see! Now you try to say that anyone from Hong Kong who has an opinion is a sockpuppet, this is just nonsense!" --Kuailong (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
我係話「屈得就屈」,唔係「nonsense」,兩者完全唔同意思。--Tvb10data (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
As I have said several times during this incident, my finding that Tvb10data is a sockpuppet relies on the tools available only to a Commons Checkuser. The case is obvious. As I said above, aside from my findings, the account has a history on WP:EN where it also has been used only for disruptive editing. Opinions are very welcome on Commons. However, the same person expressing an opinion under two different names is absolutely forbidden and is a valid reason for an indefinite block of both accounts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
我身為當事人,我只見到User:Jameslwoodward在Commons上絕對絕對沒有解釋得很清楚,而是老屈得很清楚!!甚麼叫因為「隱私」(按:在香港誰都用「私隱」)政策不能公開?!現在是我無端白事被老屈被查,連查了甚麼,我都不可以知道?!不可以要求公開?!這叫甚麼私隱?!這是Commons上的User:Jameslwoodward侵犯我的私隱!!現在維基人侵犯我的私隱還自以為理直氣壯!!
而家User:Jameslwoodward根本係老屈當秘笈,死都唔肯講究竟check咗我乜、點check我,但係死話佢check得好清楚證據充足。就完完全全同梁振英、李慧琼一模一樣,佢哋聲稱傘革係「外國勢力」搞出嚟嘅,聲稱有證有據嘅,但係到底係乜證據,就死都唔肯(攞唔倒)出嚟,但仍然死唔認錯,仲荒天下之大謬咁話:「相信就見到證據,唔信就話係生安白造。」而家User:Jameslwoodward聲稱對我有證有據證明係傀儡,但乜春都堅持唔肯(攞唔到)出嚟,死叫人相信佢有證據[1],唔係一模一樣咩?!?!
而且我話之佢有乜春子虛烏有定子虛烏有嘅神祕證據,我有充份反證就足以推翻,而我同User:Wing1990hk喺真正蒲開嘅中文維基上面嘅活動紀錄就係最好證據。但係我提咗出嚟之後,有管理員理過咩?!佢哋一味重覆嗰啲乜春子虛烏有定子虛烏有嘅神祕證據,我提出嘅反證就無視無視無視再無視!!咁樣處理仲有公平可言?!仲有公正可言?!而家唔係輸打贏要又係乜嘢?!憑乜嘢唔理呢個反證?!尤其User:Jameslwoodward仲要連盲字都唔識隻,咁簡單嘅廣東話都唔明,佢又憑乜嘢用佢嘅妄想去老屈我呢個香港人,憑乜嘢資格去處理呢件關乎香港嘅事?!
以於假借版權為名行河蟹之實,同一維基中,這邊廂聲稱可以fair use但放圖的那邊廂卻聲稱不可,這根本是玩嘢,明顯是自相矛盾的規定有問題——而維基規則實際是用時間霸佔維基的維基人所編訂、操控的。而且,此圖在commons上提刪的時間是20:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)。可是當中力主速刪的User:STSC,早於13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)之時,已於傘革英文版條目的討論頁上,罵這圖是「absolutely non-NPOV」(絕對不政治中立),罵人「You can just put that poster of Xi Jinping in your bedroom but not on Wikipedia」,這如果不叫做證據確鑿的政治審查、政治打壓,還可以叫甚麼?!Reply
上次在英文維基,有香港人在交通條目country上填上香港,被User:Ryulong老屈成傀儡,我和另外有香港維基戶見狀,前去指出其非,我說買部i phone 6,香港都係叫country,結果我和其他出聲反對的香港用戶,都被User:Ryulong老屈成人肉傀儡!本來有其他香港用戶投訴緊我唔嘈住。而家User:Jameslwoodward攞我呢單被老屈嘅事話我搞破壞,含血噴人,生安白造,誣衊抹黑!!明明完全唔同人,我喺現實世界完全唔識Wing1990hk、Tony YKS,即使喺維基我亦有好多觀點同佢哋唔一樣,只係喺呢一件事上兩個人講嘅觀點相似,User:Jameslwoodward就老屈我係「the same person expressing an opinion under two different names」!!!!!!咁樣顛倒黑白、顛倒事非、顛倒曲直、顛倒對錯、指鹿為馬、捏造事實、陷害異己、消滅異見,是可忍,孰不可忍?!?!?!?!?!--Tvb10data留言) 2014年11月18日 (二) 00:05 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, the sysops and CUers are not required to understand Cantonese or Mandarin. Use English if you want to communicate with Jameslwoodword. Also, read Commons policies would help.--Kuailong (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
呢度係Commons但係Commons而家郁倒中文維基嘅嘢。郁佢嘅人難道冇責任去了解咁對中文維基嘅事實紀錄有乜影響,就可以將他人資訊嘅生死操弄於掌股之間?!咁樣係負責任咩?!我喺香港人,我由中文維基嚟,我堅持講番香港話,難道係罪?上到法庭上,有少數族裔被非禮要作證,法庭難道冇責任安排翻譯,而要迫受害人講英文,否則當佢有罪嗎?!係咁嘅話,公理何存?!我堅持講番香港嘅話,因為而家係香港嘅事,係呢班外國人用唔合理、不公義嘅蠻暴手段,剝奪香港事實嘅紀錄,老屈香港人!!呢個係尊嚴問題。而家Jameslwoodward仲喺佢個talk版上不停咁強姦事實,聲稱我「只在commons和英文維基呢兩個地方出沒」而且「是破壞者」,完完全全無視係人肯去睇都可以睇到嘅客觀事實證據:我喺中文維基上嘅貢獻頁,咁樣顛倒事實法,難道有基本對錯之心嘅人,可以接受倒咩?!唔止咁,佢仲要脅Tony YKS,恐嚇佢「if you continue being disruptive over a simple DR, one of my colleagues surely will(指will block you)」,黑社會用暴力對待傘革人士,梁振英聲言要告信報、練乙錚誹謗,而家Jameslwoodward呢種極其卑污賤格陰險可恥嘅言論,同佢哋有咩分別?!--Tvb10data (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the block on this account because further research shows that while it is clearly a meatpuppet account, it may not actually be the same person as Wing1990hk. I suggest strongly to Tvb10data that he not do any further editing on Commons until he reads and understands both Commons policy and the copyright laws of Hong Kong. Accounts that act simply as meatpuppets, repeating what others have told them, are not welcome here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Jameslwoodward,你咁樣含血噴人,真係過得倒你嘅良心?首先就極力老屈我係傀儡,而家其他commons人/維基人證實咗我唔係,就屈我係人肉傀儡。你要老屈人到幾時先至安樂?!難道正常人發表立足於公義公理的言論,就全都是「人肉傀儡」?!
至於說到在維基就要遵守所謂維基規則,這徹徹底底就是我在11月18日已在中文維基「雨傘革命」條目討論頁裏所指出的「維基中心」,以為這個世界繞着維基規則公轉:
一些以「維基人」自居的人,經常都「維基中心」,自己制訂便於河蟹事實的方針,把河蟹事實稱為所謂的「提高項目質量」。這根本只是刪除派消滅自己不喜歡的事實資訊的手段。
維基只是互聯網上的一件公器,不是神。就如政府所頒佈的法例,也有是否惡法之分;人大的決定,也不見得不可撼動;所謂維基規則也一樣,不見得一定合公理公義,不見得是『最基本』的,不見得不可撼動。事實上,那些「維基人」時常都在撼動、改變維基規則,只是改變的結果,不時是更鞏固或更方便於給他們刪除事實資料。以一些由「維基人」自己造成的惡法去支持河蟹,也許「維基人」覺得很有說服力,但看在公眾眼裏只是得啖笑。就像這次涉及的是版權法例,那個User:Jameslwoodward在解封我後還死翻魚拗番生地說我不理解香港版權法。但美國法例容許fair use,香港現行版權條例也透過fair dealing豁免了用於新聞報道及評論的二次創作,這事我已咨詢過版權及二次創作關注聯盟的專業法律意見。版權及二次創作關注聯盟回覆我時還說,commons這禁令沒有法律上的依據,而且粗暴扼殺了公民紀錄事實的權利,應當予以廢除。可見這道禁令在法理上根本站不住腳,這次還是用於先有用戶基於政治立場上的河蟹事件中(詳見中文維基「雨傘革命」條目討論頁),大家有理由對此提出抗議,維基也應修正這些有悖於法理的規定,而不是以它來強權壓人!
在此由衷感謝User:Tony YKS不斷極力替在下爭取,冒着User:Jameslwoodward的謾罵及白色恐怖(不但把User:Tony YKS說成是人肉傀儡,更聲言若User:Tony YKS繼續為我爭取,其他人就會封禁他。User:Tony YKS也遭無理封禁一天。),仍堅持以理抗命,還我清白。肯面對事實的人會看到,我和User:Tony YKS不但只是在維基上萍水相逢,而且在一些事的立場上並不相同的,但User:Tony YKS都從沒計較過這些,一直執於道理,鍥而不捨,不令維基人還我清白不罷休。對比那些有心加害我的用戶、不顧事實的用戶,User:Tony YKS更彰顯光輝。請容在下向User:Tony YKS致敬。--Tvb10data (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • New comment, but minor note for @Jameslwoodward: sometimes there are some users who use spoken Cantonese, which cannot be well translated by Google Translate. Hope you will know the Chinese usage in the Chinese community, and do not block any innocent users, and you shall be hopeful that I am typing the language that you can only recognize instantly. Sanmosa (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply