Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 2 November 2007

Archives
1 2

도와주세요

Please help me to expand an article concerning Balhae i'have found that Balhae previously controlled region located on the west of Sungari/Songhua river those are named 약홀주(若忽州),목저주(木底州) and 현도주 (玄兎州). i need further infos about those provinces which were probably lost during Balhae history maybe between 750-820 because i'm sure that :

- Under 대무예/무왕 reign, 장문휴 launched a naval campaign against Tang at 등주(登州) in the Shandong Peninsula in 732 (maybe from 약홀주 ). I dont think that Balhae navy skirt/bypass the Korean peninsula controlled at this time by Silla but rather left 약홀주 (corresponding to the actual Dandong,the only "window" (port/city) located on the Yellow) shores to lauch it.

- In addition to that Balhae lost those regions before 820 (see List of Provinces of Balhae in 820).

My Korean proficiency level is a bit low to allow me to write 2/3 setences on those 3 former provinces of Balhae.감사합니다.Whlee 08:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a list of links :

• http://www.eurasianhistory.com/data/articles/m1/1672.html
• http://www.eurasianhistory.com/data/articles/m1/1670.html
• http://www.koreandb.net/dictionaries/Viewframe.aspx?id=4111&ser=2
• http://www.newmurim.net/newmurim/main300/x1-4.htm
• http://mahan.wonkwang.ac.kr/source/Balhea/10.htm
• http://www.thinkpool.com/mini/bbs/pdsRead.jsp?hid=think2001&ctg=3&slt=&key=&page=5&number=366712&i_max=00005588599999
• http://blog.joins.com/media/folderListSlide.asp?uid=shim4707&folder=35&list_id=8043592
• http://enc.daum.net/dic100//viewContents.do?articleID=b12s0311a
• http://www.reportnet.co.kr/detail/150/149519.html
• http://www.encyber.com/search_w/ctdetail.php?gs=ws&gd=&cd=&q=&p=&masterno=71185&contentno=71185

Give me some time for the Balhae sources. Good friend100 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

알개습니다 고마워요!Whlee 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On tributary relations

Goodfriend, I too think you should stop your edits on Goguryeo's tributary relations. I know what Assault11 doing is wrong and that the "Political connections..." section should be removed, but your eidts are not very well-grounded either. What Byington refers to in the source is a client state relationship, not a tributary relationship. The two relationships are entirely differnet political relationships. Tributary relationships were the means to cultural exchange and trade in the ancient past under the Chinese world order. Of course, using those relationships to assume some kind of a special "political connections" is factually incorrect, but that Goguryeo engaged in tributary relationship with Chinese kingdoms is a fact. Cydevil38 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know, I'm not denying the fact. The site says "Although Chinese histories treat Koguryo during these times as a tributary of the Chinese emperor, in reality the emperor was powerless to exercise any direct control over Koguryo or its kings" Good friend100 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see that as a clarification of the nature of tributary relationship rather than as a denial of the existense of a tributary relationship. Again, that section should be rewritten, and will be, but it will take some time to get other matters sorted out first. Cydevil38 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China

is repeatedly reverting sourced information on this article.

The information is clearly cited yet he deletes it. He seems to delete information that he doesn't like, whether they are unsourced or sourced.

Assault is also deleting warning tags calling them vandalism, and is breaking Misplaced Pages policies.

I am tired of his stubborness and I am requesting administrative action against him, thank you. Good friend100 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Source clearly does not support his claim. No where in the source has there been any indication that tributes ended in 106 CE. I have provided sources (both primary and secondary) that confirms the exact opposite (see talk page). Good friend100 has been criticized by other editors regarding this issue . Assault11 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. There's no blocking needed here unless the revert-warring continues. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Takeshima on the map

The map actually has the word Takeshima on it; that's why it needs to be reported that way. If a map says Dokdo on it, we'll report that, too. It's important to stick to what the maps say rather than putting our own interpretation on them. —LactoseTI 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment from the 3RR incident report page. Good friend100 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well try to stand by Misplaced Pages policy instead. Censoring what maps say isn't going to be tolerated or accepted, and if you continue to remove verifiable information, you will be blocked. —LactoseTI 20:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It says that it is unclear whether or not the Japanese government fabricated the map or not. And how do you know if it says "Takeshima" on the map? Its too small for me to read. Good friend100 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That "fabricated" comment is just left by some POV editor. Someone will get around to removing it eventually. As for the size, zoom in on it, it's tiny, but readable. I agree we shouldn't use Takeshima unless it's actually on a map, but on a Japanese map when it does appear, it's perfectly appropriate (and essential) to mention it. —LactoseTI 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats all your interpretation on who left the comment. Do you know how to read Japanese? Good friend100 20:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria Debate

Hiya. After I offered my 3rd Opinion and got smacked int he chops for it, I decided that there were better ways to spend my day rather than deal with people who were either racist or taking the article far too personally for anyone's good. User:Cydevil38 has also contacted me on this topic as well, and you can see how I advised him as to the process to move along the path to resolution, the last option being ArbCom. You will want to work with him in this matter, as he appears to be concerned over the toxic nature the discussion has taken on.

I have recommended that those people who are being the most disruptive can be watched very closely for 3RR or uncivility violations, for which they can be blocked (it will be important to make sure that they actually violate this policy very clearly). This should only be used on the most disruptive editors on both sides, as it is almost always the case that the people in the middle are the ones who actually find a compromise and consensus, without the polarizing influences of one side or the other.

The next step after "helping" these people garner 3RR blocks is to pursue an RfC in the matter. This is the logical next step, as discussion on the page, and private discussion betweeen editors, and 3rd Opinion have not served to resolve the issue. An RfC will ask for the comment from one or more admins. Those people who have accumulated a poor reputation (say, from uncivility or 3RR blocks) are looked upon poorly by admins, who will see the edit-warring for what it is, and block those most guilty of interfering with the editing of the article.

If that doesn't do the trick, ArbCom is the final destination. There, they will not look at the point in contention. They will look at everyone's behavior in the article, and their penalties for those who have been impolite or have accumulated infractions will be dealt with in exceeedingly stringent methods, up to and including being banned permanently from editing WP.

It is for this reason that you must not engage in edit-warring or 3RR violation over this matter. Revert as necessary, but don't break the rules. Tomorrow is another day, and all that. Try very, very hard to stay above the fray (this from someone who has learned the hard way about that). This protects you when the matter escalates, as you can claim honestly to be on the side of right.

I will take a look at the discussion, and maybe offer some comments on the User talk pages to cvalm things down. It quite likely will have no effect, but it may be worth the attempt. - Arcayne () 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand, you are right about the weight of an editor's comment according to his/her history. As for myself, I got 4 blocks under my belt. I got filed again, but I'll try to not edit war, thank you for the information. Good friend100 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On Wikiquette alert

Goodfriend, I think it's better if you just stop revert warring and take Hong Qi Gong's proposal here and cooperate on that new article on Tributary Relations in East Asia(or Asia) which can clarify the nature of tributary relationships. Perhaps in that article, you can take Goguryeo as an example to show readers how tributary relations functioned. Cydevil38 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Nlu recently signed a RfC User Conduct on Assault11. I doubt he had the authority to deal with Assault11 back then, though I do think it would've been better had RfC User Conduct on Assault11 been filed earlier on before all this ruckus started. And Endroit is trying to put a stop to the current RfC User Conduct for reasons I think we both are well aware of. Cydevil38 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Goguryeofootsoldier.jpg

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Template:History of Manchuria. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

You have been blocked

Per your continued edit warring, most recently at Goguryeo-China wars, you have been blocked for 1 week. As always, you may contest the block with {{unblock|Reason here}}. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No reason

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. — Yamla 18:56, 13 June 2007 (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.

Good friend100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only thing you going to say is either that I am already aware of 3RR, my block is justified for 1 week because I have been blocked before. Let me just say this that I am not the only one at fault, if you admins would even pay attention to my calls for RfC and third opinions(which you miserably failed to do) and RfC's on users like one, although Arcayne told me that he "got smacked" by the CPOV editors for commenting. We have no help to compromise Goguryeo related articles because there are not enough third opinions. Anyhow, thats your decision, since you don't know what else is going on behind there. Oh, your also going to say that this request template is not a way for more complaints by me. Anyways, thanks for the block! I need a wikibreak anyways and I'm studying for testing out (on Health from my school) later this week so whoever timed the 1 week was pretty good at it. =) Good friend100 18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are already aware of 3RR, your block is justified because you have been blocked before, and this request template is not a way for complaints. Enjoy your break, and good luck on your test. — Kafziel 17:56, 14 June 2007 (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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Callofduty2pointeduhoc.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Callofduty2pointeduhoc.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. G1ggy /_Contribs 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all good. Well done :D G1ggy /_Contribs 00:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

No idea who the next admin will be. Could be anyone. As for persuasion, you gotta just have a stronger argument and signs that your view is the consensus. Goes for both sides of the issue. --Woohookitty 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. --Woohookitty 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

In response to your comments on my talk page, I get no amusement from you being blocked. It doesn't matter whether you are "right" or "wrong," or whether or not you had good intentions with your reverts. Reverting 5 times in 8 hours is disruptive and a clear violation of the 3RR. I'm not sure what you mean that you're "not going to put up with this," but I suggest you keep a cool head and refrain from this kind of disruptive behavior, and you won't have to worry at all about being blocked. —LactoseTI 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What the administrator did is what he did and theres not much I can do about it. And I don't care what you want to say to me, you certainly don't help with anything here either, like not warning editors who make personal attacks. Note that your friend Komdori has been edit warring too and its not fair how I only get blocked and he's happy with his edits. Oh, well, no point screaming "its not fair" now, is there? The mighty administrators must do their job, right? I'm not going to file a report on him because theres no point in it and theres no point playing at that level you like to play at.

Happy editing!!! For some reason, the administrators are really good at timing their blocks on me (three days, if you didn't already gleefully check the noticboard). I'm going to Korea (south, just to clarify) on 6/25/07 (which is almost three days away) and hopefully I can take some pictures there anbd upload them here and not get my talk page filled up with your/Komdori's tags on them. Talk to you and the other editors when I get back, which is probably in late August or something. Have fun editing and maybe there will be some improvement around here when I get back. Good friend100 13:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm out of the way for 2 months you can have fun. Keep a cool head right? Yeah, sure, I'll do that. In fact, I'll apologize. And in fact, I'll refrain from this kind of disruptive behavior. Just know that I'm not an idiot and I'm going to make sure that other editors who need to be punished will be punished. And your right, it doesn't matter whether I'm "right" or "wrong", (politics don't really matter here) just join the rat race and bow down to the rules here, and your fine. Hahaha! Again, I'll be gone for 2 months, so if you leave a message or something I won't get back to it. Good friend100 14:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, you left a note on my talk page asking me to look into various matters concerning Goguryeo-China Wars. What is immediately apparent to me is that you and other editors are very stressed by this historical topic. Reviewing your edit history I see you've been entirely engaged in the subject of Korean history. Since you've asked my advice I suggest that you avoid conflict in this topic, and that you find some less contentious subjects to edit as well. When we only edit articles with disputes the process can seem like a battle that only has winners and losers. Misplaced Pages is a collaboration, one in which everyone should be a winner. Achieving consensus may mean we won't get our way on everything, or that we have to settle for something which is only acceptable but not ideal. That's OK too.

Since you are taking a short involuntary break, and a long voluntary one, I urge you to put Misplaced Pages and it's disputes out of your mind. When you come back, I urge you to find some new interests to supplement Korean history. Meanwhile I'll see what help I can bring to Goguryeo-China Wars. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

re:personal attacks

Saying that I've heard some "fucking outlandish stuff " is not a personal attack, so don't falsely accuse me of that. Moreover, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Parsecboy 11:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not angry with Ksyrie at all. It's just mind blowing that someone actually thinks that government censorship of free thought is a good thing. It really is 1984 over there. Parsecboy 12:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Hey good friend, remember that you can bring in more people into a dispute. I think that you've been blocked for absolutely no reasons other than 3RR - which you could have easily avoided. Reverting is a form of testing consensus. As long as you have more consensus, you can avoid 3RR. (Wikimachine 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Umm, Good friend, I'm sure you've had enough trouble w/ these guys. Could you approve? It'll get deleted in ~24 hours. (Wikimachine 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Image:Stick jump 4-14-07 youtube safe0001.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stick jump 4-14-07 youtube safe0001.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Cheers, Komdori 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Dokdo5.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Dokdo5.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Cheers, Komdori 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution

Thank you for your contribution on Korea-related articles. Korean articles have been improved greatly since you started working on.

Hmm.....

Are you really retired?Kfc1864 07:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

welcome back

welcome back, I'm glad you changed your mind. However, you do owe the community an apology for inciting vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Odst 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

You're one of the parties for this arbitration case that I'm filing. The link to the arbitration is at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests. (Wikimachine 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Liancourt Rocks

I thought you had reverted to my edit. You don't feel that the current edition is JPOV & offensive? Wikimachine 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks. I'll get it through, so just don't worry about it. Wikimachine 00:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up Regarding Your Recent 3RR Violation

Please see for information about the latest report. —LactoseTI 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A little late there. Good friend100 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely from editing wikipedia. This is your seventh block for 3rr violations and you are clearly not interested in editing according to the accepted rules. Spartaz 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

So you got blocked? I hope that you start another account or just forget about Misplaced Pages completely - you don't need it. Remember my e-mail address & ask me about anything on Misplaced Pages if you'd like. I still think that there must have been a reason why you violated the 3RR, for 7th time, etc.

Also, about those pics from your visit to Korea, are you still going to upload them? Send them to my e-mail address & I'll upload them for you. So, thx for being a good friend for the last 1 & 1/2 yrs & also for starting WikiProject Korea (I remember everything, including how Visviva kind of got upset b/c his Korea Portal's central role would get replaced by the wikiproject, but he gave in) Good luck. (Wikimachine 22:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to unblock you for the duration of this case to allow you to participate if you are prepared to commit to not undertaking more than one revert a day on any article and and if you accept that you will be reblocked immediately if you do not stick to this agreement. Please feel free to either e-mail me or use the {{unblock}} template to grab any passing admins attention. Failing that, newyorkkbrad has this page watchlisted and will copy anything across to the arb com case that you post here for that purpose. Spartaz 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I'll unblock, based on the agreement above. Request handled by: FisherQueen (Talk) 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

-FisherQueen (Talk) 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. (Wikimachine 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

Reply regarding new referenced material for Protoss

Hi,

To reply to your comment, see the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Protoss - generally, the article has too much on the single-player storyline right now, and not enough on gameplay, specifically how Protoss works in gameplay and how that has been significant for well-known professional players and competitions. We observed the likelihood that there are a lot of Korean-language sources that discuss these sorts of things that aren't currently easily available for those who don't understand Korean, so some Korean-language sources on the English Misplaced Pages page for Protoss would be a lot of help. We need more sources for that sort of thing specifically directed to Protoss as opposed to Starcraft generally, to suit the particular article on Protoss. Thanks a lot for responding! I hope you get a chance to help. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Followup - nice work! Thanks. Can you find any sources for this material, too? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "Horrible" grammar comprehension

I understand you may not be a native speaker, but before using such harsh tones as "horrible grammar," perhaps you'd be best to check with a native speaker first. Best wishes, —LactoseTI 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion between me and Wikimachine on our talk pages

You're welcome to join in, but if there are going to be more than two participants perhaps it's best to keep the discussion on one page for the sake of simplicity (otherwise we'd all be posting replies left right and centre) - what do you reckon, my talk page or Wikimachine's? You choose! Phonemonkey 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that's why you posted in two places, it wasn't criticism. On my talk page is fine by me - I'll ask Wikimachine. Phonemonkey 23:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, ok. I wasn't taking it as criticism, by the way. Good friend100 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Phonemonkey 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion on Liancourt talk page

"Its most likely that we will start a fight between Goodfriend and Wikimachine vs. Phonemonkey, Lactose, and Opp2" - I didn't expect this response. Can you tell me why? Has there been a previous dispute over this? Phonemonkey 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Response at Liancourt Rocks. Good friend100 23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of reformatting some comments for the sake of clarity (moved it up and placed indents), hope you don't mind. Please feel free to revert it if you're not happy. Phonemonkey 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Brand new Article for Korea

Please help me expanding this brand new article Republic of Korea Passport. Kingj123 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lactose

This guy has been shadowing my edits and initiating revert wars. He's followed me to the Japanese sea lion article for goodness sake. Do you know if there's any way of reporting this somewhere?melonbarmonster 00:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed reverts

Regarding this partial revert and subsequent edits: You violated the rules against uncooperative editing, by failing to provide informative edit summaries, and failing to explain in advance on the discussion page what you were going to revert. I can see no argument on the talk page why you thought this particular piece of information was problematic. You are therefore blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder...

...that one of the rules for Liancourt Rocks is to always use edit summaries, right? Seeing edits without them always rings alarm bells. Can you please make it a habit to use them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please be more careful with accusing others of vandalism, as you did here . The anon's edit was evidently made in good faith, as he was removing a passage that had indeed been made redundant by another (possibly better worded?) paragraph covering the same material that he had included earlier. Of course, the erroneously included signature should have been removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think the anon you reverted was actually Clownface, right? He's still having problems with when and where to use a signature and how to use an edit summary. Perhaps you could give him some advice in Korean? His English doesn't seem to be too good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery, When are you going to finish uploading the rest of the pictures? Jegal 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, could you reply on talk page (Japanese invasions)? I'll try to find cites to the stuffs about armor. In fact I wasted hours & hours trying to find a legitimate source but I couldn't. I think that the best course of action for now is to revert to the version before your edits & then reintroduce acceptable ones. (Wikimachine 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Chinese Picture with Clear Face in Korea War Article

Hi Good Friend, the picture is really offensive and I am honest about it. It is not only myself, all most all Chinese feel same way. If a certain group of people all feel the same way, isn't it indicate at least something to you? I wish you can understand. Peace. Dongwenliang 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1RR parole violation

A report has been left of your 1RR parole violation . --Cheers, Komdori 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week, at least pending any changes that might be necessary for the current ArbCom case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to unblock on one condition: Your edits are to be restricted to your userspace (user page, user talk page and subpages) as well as the Arbitration case pages. I believe that you need to be able to edit the Arbitration case pages, so I'm willing to give you another chance. Violating that and I will restore the block myself. - Penwhale | 08:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If I am allowed to edit only on the arb case for one week, does it mean that I will be able to edit freely after that week? I'd be thankful if I were restricted to the arb case for one week but its not a big problem.

By the way, I am editing on a school computer. That means that the IP address is probably different from my home address. So if there is an IP scan or something, I'm not using sockpuppets >.> Good friend100 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, yes. (Unless you do something horrible.) - Penwhale | 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Penwhale on this offer, though that's not why I'm here. I want to let you know that there is an ANI thread about you right now discussing the possibility of a community sanction. If Penwhale's amenable, I'd be OK with allowing you to comment in that thread as part of your unblock (in addition to the ArbCom case), particularly if the discussion seems to be leading toward a sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just take the one week ban to chill off?

Also, please realize that I wasn't disrupting articles this whole time. I don't think I made any bad contributions until Komdori filed another report against me, even though I clearly apologized, undid my edits, and expressed my regret. I feel like im being ostracized simply because of policy violations when there are numerous editors edit warring and showing anti-Korean sentiment. For example, trying to emphasize dog meat in Korean cuisine or weakening Korean arguments for ironcladding at turtle ship. I'm not accusing anybody, but its not fair that I'm the only getting the banhammer all the time.

You can be anti-Korean as much as you want without violating policies and thats where anti-Korean editors prey on. I attempted to get administrators to realize this before, but they won't respond to me unless Komdori/LactoseTI make a policy violation, which they rarely (if any) do.

Considering the ANI file on me, I'd like to respond to other editors. I don't think I deserve a sanction, but rather at least get administrators to inspect all of us. Good friend100 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to find a way to respond to those with whom you disagree besides edit warring. You've already been indefblocked once; that and the subsequent restriction to one revert should have given you the idea that your edit warring had stop, and yet here it keeps going. Frankly, I think you are skating on some very thin ice and are about one edit war away from being sanctioned by the community (whether a siteban or a topic ban I don't know). You must pursue dispute resolution if you feel other editors are being unfair or non-netural. That is the only advice I can give you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "one edit war away"? And whats a siteban? Good friend100 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That means that he believes the community is close to vote to ban you via consensus. Siteban means a permanent exile (i.e. you're not welcomed to edit). - Penwhale | 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm sorry, and I regret getting all the way down here. What would happen if I offer that if I edit war again I will get banned forever? Good friend100 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are only one violation away from being reblocked indef by me. Behave or you will have to contribute to the rfar by e-mail. Spartaz 08:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Spartaz that one more edit war from you should mean an indef block. You are now only a little more than a day from the expiry of your block. I strongly advise you to come up with a plan for how you are going to avoid edit warring. Remember that you may not get another chance if you do it again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks closed

The above arbitration case has closed, and Wikimachine (talk · contribs) has been banned from Misplaced Pages for one year. All parties are reminded that attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, for a 1RR violation

Note, this is in violation of the 1RR agreement as referenced to at WP:AN3. Anthøny 09:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What did I do wrong this time? Link me to the 1RR diff at the Goguryeo page. I don't think I was edit warring there and my last revert was on Cydevil's attempt to delete a large portion of the article. Also, I didn't know that the 1RR parole applied after that long ban. Also, what is my limitation? If I revert one edit, does that mean I get banned? (seems to be the case at Goguryeo) But at least link me to my violation. Please see below. Good friend100 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion is mostly supportive of an indefinite block. — Sandstein 22:58, 28 October 2007 (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 matter is being discussed at AN/I. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. Komdori filed a report against me, but I don't think I was doing anything wrong. To the blocking admin, I wasn't doing anything wrong. Komdori is simply taking advantage of my parole to get the administrators to ban me forever. I feel that he is taking this to a personal level because I did not edit war, even Spartaz agrees that I wasn't doing anything wrong.

However, regardless of the degree of my mistake (which I see as zero), Komdori is successful in getting the administrators to pay attention to my troubled past so that they can block me indef or topic ban me. I learned my lesson, I already told you, and was contributing to a couple articles. Komdori has no right to keep trying to get me blocked. I make any intolerable mistake. In fact, seeing the report, none of those diffs show me making multiple reverts or edit wars. Komdori has taken this too far and he has taken this to a personal level of getting me indef blocked. I ask for an unban because I did not do anything wrong. And I have learned my mistakes. I have not done anything in that report that shows that I have broken the rules again. I have done nothing wrong since my last ban (the one week ban). Good friend100 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rpgpic1027.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rpgpic1027.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To Spartaz

Even you agreed that I did nothing wrong at Goguryeo. I didn't do anything wrong! I am very sad that Komdori has taken this to a personal level to get me banned. He has filed a report against me that shows that I have done nothing wrong. Yet the report itself just puts a negative impression on me and now the other admins will think I have violated the rules again when I have not. I have learned my lesson. I feel as if the blocking admin did not consider the report carefully. I didn't do anything wrong at Goguryeo. Cydevil deleted a large portion of the article so I reverted it. However, something was funny with the article so I reverted myself. How is this edit warring?? I don't understand. Good friend100 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I'm watching the discussion. Wouldn't it help if I could have a say at the ANI? I'm trying to stay in contact. Good friend100 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100: to clear things up a bit, actually the report was filed before you had gone ahead and made that additional revert against Cydevil. The report contained other reverts you had done shortly earlier to the same article. --Cheers, Komdori 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The report, even you can see, has no clear diffs that show me messing with the article and making reverts. I reverted Cydevil's edit because he deleted a section of the article. Then I undid my edit because my edit turned out wierd for some reason. I have no idea why you would use this to file a report against me other than for personal reasons. Actually, you have succeeded in turning this as a cause for me to get banned for life because now the admins are discussing it. You brought their attention to me and now they are discussing that I can't comply with the rules when I have not made any violations.

Its clear that you dislike me as a person. Every report until now has been made by you or Lactose. And now, your most recent report against me clearly shows that you are not doing this without bias. Even Spartaz agreed that I didn't violate anything. The report currently stands as "no violation" for now. But your conduct is something that needs to be inspected too. Because it isn't fair that you can just report me using flimsy evidence to try and get me banned.

I'm done with edit warring and I'm done with arguing with others. I just started to edit Japanese invasions of Korea and a couple others, but even that is disrupted because you feel that I need to get indef blocked. I think I got the message now. Wikimachine's banned for 1 year and I was blocked for a week. I know I have about a billion blocks stamped on my face. But I learned my lesson and I was attempting to edit peacefully. Please don't judge me before I make another blatant revert or if I edit war. Good friend100 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about this. These articles (Goguryeo, etc.) are very controversial, and the subject of many edit wars. I don't think it's unreasonable to watch an editor closely when they have a history of disrupting articles. You were on specific notice to behave and have had several last chances after stating you've "learned your lesson" repeatedly. When you come off block after block and immediately begin to revert you shouldn't be surprised that you are re-blocked. To be frank, it's a bit troubling that your gut reaction to edits you don't like on controversial articles, no less, is to still hit undo without discussing (as you did three times to Goguryeo recently). It's true that you self-reverted one of them when you realized you might get in trouble, but you have repeated showed that you are unable to stop this knee-jerk reaction (we're into double digits on the block count, now). --Cheers, Komdori 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even consider my "undo" as part of another campaign of edit warring. I already explained that Cydevil deleted a large portion of the text so I reverted it and then reverted my own edits because something was wrong with the article after the edit. Let me clear up something to you first that I undid my edits because I thought I messed up the article, not because I edit warred.

Regardless of your feelings toward me, I feel that you have taken this to a personal issue because your report was very flimsy without any hard evidence that I was actually edit warring. Its clear that you are trying to do whatever it takes (i.e make an unneccesary report) to get me blocked indef. I want it to stop. You have been an editor long enough to know what is edit warring and what is not. And if you tell me you couldn't tell if my "edit warring" was a violation or not, then that just supports the idea that you don't like me as a person. Please stop. I was just starting to edit Japanese invasions of Korea and work on it. Didn't I say that I learned my lesson after the one week ban? Didn't wikimachine get kicked out for one year? Isn't that enough? I stopped breaking the rules right? Please don't accuse me and also please don't tell me I should get indef blocked until I make a clear violation of the rules. Good friend100 20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And what do you mean by knee jerk reaction? When somebody deletes a large portion of the text, its obvious that you should revert it because thats vandalism. Also note that my "edit warring" was not conflicting with you or LactoseTI, etc. It wasn't controversial. It was simply a revert to vandalism. You are allowed to revert vandalism without discussing it. I just came to realize that you reported me without thinking about all this first. Good friend100 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You undid two edits by an anon editor who was edit warring with you (he made edits, you undid, he undid, he made more, you undid, Cydevil edited, you undid, with no summaries, talk, etc.) This is not editing acceptably. You've said things amounting to "I've learned my lesson" many times and just keep on edit warring. I'm all for second (and third through tenth) chances, but what is to say this is any different? You've been warned time and time again, said you understand, and when you are off your week long unblocks immediately relapse. --Cheers, Komdori 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As for Cydevil's edit, it was not even part of the report. Clearly, it could have been, though--removing a couple of sentences is clearly a content dispute, not wholesale, obvious vandalism. --Cheers, Komdori 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not edit warring with the anon user. Did you check what the diffs were? The anon user deleted several important sentences, to which I considered as vandalism and so reverted (check my post before this one on vandalism).

And then the second undo I did on the anon user was because he deleted the word "major". And its a fact that Goguryeo was a major regional power, so I undid that edit.

Please explain to me how any of these reverts (both which I identified as vandalism) shows that I was edit warring and violating policies. Were these edits even alike to each other? Also, although you could argue that Cydevil's edit was content dispute, he did not discuss first and he has a history of edit warring too. So I reverted it. His deletion of a section (even more importantly, the first one), is vandalism. People have deleted or made heavy changes to the first paragraph in Liancourt Rocks. Their edits were reverted because they were considered vandalism. I did just the same. Good friend100 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I want an apology from you. I realized that you have made many wrongs considering my "edit warring" at Goguryeo over these last posts. And saying that I got blocked immediately after my one week ban carries no weight in your argument. Because the diffs didn't even connect with each other, and the fact that Spartaz didn't agree with you, and the fact that it says "no violation" on my report, shows that my current block is not fair. I have raised concern over this on the block tag. The 5 day ban, if no admin unblocks me, is fine with me. Its understandable if they cannot see your mistake (unless they read this discussion between you and me). But this 5 day ban has no weight and I got blocked for no good reason. So don't use this ban as a weapon to get me indef banned because I have done nothing wrong after the one week ban. Good friend100 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You should know the difference between vandalism and a content dispute by now. Even when being on your "best behaviour" you still see the need to edit war, it seems. The 3RR report has been updated to help clear up the confusion. --Cheers, Komdori 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Its vandalism because Cydevil deleted a large section of the article. The anon user deleted several important sentences without any discussion at all. I consider that vandalism. If I deleted half of the intro paragraph at Liancourt Rocks, wouldn't you revert it? I considered my reverts as undoing vandalism, not as a content dispute. If the anon user or Cydevil had a problem with the content, he/she should have opened a thread on the discussion page.

Also, what is with you saying that I was on my "best behavior"? Also, what do you mean when you say that I "still see the need to edit war"? How do I still see the need to edit war when I wasn't even edit warring? See the diffs you posted, you are contradicting yourself. Your diffs (and the diffs I explained above) show that I wasn't edit warring. Now you are resorting to claims that don't have any evidence. Its clear that I wasn't edit warring.

You are still trying to use your report as an excuse to get me indef blocked. Just because I got blocked doesn't mean I did something wrong. Regardless of the duration of the block, its clear that I did not edit war and I did not violate anything. Good friend100 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, please don't repeat what you have just said here to ANI. What you say is not true, and I have explained why they are not true. Also, please don't write what you think of me. Its clear that you have bias against me and commenting as if I will never change is not fair. I don't have anything else to say other than a repeat that I have not made any technical violations and that your report is very faulty. Good friend100 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have some explanation to do. What happened was that I copied & pasted the "last stable version" of the introductory part before a bunch of anon IPs started unilaterally deleting parts of it and inserting new controversial ones. In the process, I forgot to delete the original one that was already there, so the outcome were two duplicate sections. I found out the mistake later on and corrected it by deleting one of the duplicate sections. I believe it was an understandable mistake on Goodfriend's part. However, I kindly ask that you self-revert the new part that you've added, that Goguryeo was the "largest and most dominant" of the Three Kingdoms of Korea. That simply isn't true considering that power balance between the three kingdoms varied significantly. Even if true, it's an extraneous element that I don't believe is necessary in the introduction.

As for Komdori's case against you, I'm very disappointed that there are administrators asking for an indef ban. As I see it, most of your reverts were restoring the article from unilaterally deletions by anon IPs. Unilateral deletions by those anon IPs could be considered vandalism, I believe. You should point this out to the administrators. Cydevil38 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should alert them, but I can't do it until my block is over. I'm limited to here, but I really am disappointed that Komdori and LactoseTI are attempting to get me banned with a very weak argument. I wasn't even edit warring, simply undoing an anon user's deletions. Yet, these two are using that as an excuse to get me banned. I really am disappointed how bold these guys are, even when they know that the report is very flimsy. Check the report for yourself, Cydevil, and the diffs don't even match up. I'm sad how Komdori even files a report when he posts diffs that don't make any sense. Yes, Komdori/LactoseTI, let me repeat that the report is very flimsy and an administrator wrote that I had no violation. You guys are simply filing a report against me to make it look like I'm doing something bad again. Good friend100 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:ANI thread

You mentioned that you should be able to weigh in at the ANI thread, and you're right; that's only fair. I have your talk watchlisted, so if you want anything posted there, you can post it here and I'll copy it there for you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well my argument is basically everything from above this thread. However, one of the most important information that I have to comment is that Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.

Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof. Good friend100 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Spartaz agreed that I made no violation at Komdori's report. Its clear that I did nothing wrong. Good friend100 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just read through the ANI about me. LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. Thank you for posting this comment as well. Good friend100 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.

First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.

Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.

Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Misplaced Pages. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One more comment, some of the most recent posts were done at my school. If, by any chance, an administrator finds that I have been using two IP addresses, please don't block me. I don't make sockpuppets. Good friend100 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Annyeonghaseyo

Hi. Good friend100

wprk dhlrnrdjtlffurdl aksgdl Wkfqatj duddjvksdmf qlfhrtotj ekfms rht dnlzldpsms wkf gkwl ahtgkwlaks, sladml tjswjsdmf rmrks wlzuqhrh dlTtmqslek.dnfldml durtkfmf dnlgotj glaTjwntlsms rjtdp rkatkemflqslek. rmfotj dlwpRkwl smRuTejs rjtdmf rlwnsdmfh sladmf djfxhekdxhgkwleh dksgsms dldbfmf rmsrjfh Whtdksofusms anflemf (wkf dktlrpTwldy) Eoansdp ajflRmxRkwl ghkrk sktj rm tkrjsdp rptlvksdp aucakel wjrrls goTtmqslek. wlrma cnlfmf qhdkgksl dkakeh dlqjsdpsms durltj duddnjsgl vuswlqgksms ep qkfdmf emfdlwl ahtgkf rjt rkxwlsms dksgtmqslek. rmfjgrp qhrhgks Rha Ehfkdldlswl anjtlrlsms wjdakf wjdakf wkrlrk dnflskfk tkfkadlfkrh toQkfrks rmwltakfdmf gksms wnwpdp dkwn Wkwmddl skqslek. rmfjsep sladms dlgndpeh duwjsgl cltkgks rmclemfdl sladmf rPthr wnntlgkf rjt rkxspdy. wjfeofh ekdmaqjsdp snrnejs rksdp ehqkfdp sjadjrkwl aktlrndy. dlf qnfj duf qke rp gotj sladmf Wht dkfosusms Rha tnrk Qjsgkrp qhdudy. wmdaudgkf aksgks wmdrjfmf emfdleoaus rmemfdl anjfkrh gkrpTskdy? rmflrh vuswlqdl wha dytkdgkrp ehfdkrksek tlvdmaus rhksflwkdprp dycjdgkehfhr gktpdy. ghrdms ekfms dbwjdprpskdy. rmflrh aucekfrksdms wjdakf wndmlgktlrh ckfkfl dnflskfkdp rhksfusehldjTwlaks, ekfms skfkdhk wlrwjqwjrdls rhksfusdl djqtsms wnwpdml rmfdmf Tmtlsms rp skdmf emt gkqslek. dlfqnfj dlfjgrp TjTsmsep dlgogktlf wl ahfmrpTspdy. qusghksgksms vmfhrmfoadl dlTdmsl, rmrjf dldydgktpdy. durltjs sladmf qhsms snsdl gkeh aksgdktjdy. dlsxjspt wnth, dlapdlfdlfkeh dkfaus ckfkfl skdmf rjt rkxdmsepdy. ghrtl gksrmf dnlzlfmf Tmtlaus djeldlswl dkffuwntpdy. rjrlek skarlfRpdy. ekdmaqjsdpsms wjfeofh rOspemfdml ehqkfdp sjadjrkwl aktpdy. rmfja.... 보는 눈이 많이서 일 부러 이렇게 썼답니다. 대문 자와 소문 자 를 주의하시구요. This is for percausion, so please use a tool for translation. you would know what i mean. bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.36.15 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

1RR will be strictly enforced in your case which means one revert a day per article. That means a maximum of one revert not a series of separate reverts of different material. Frankly, I do not want to see you doing any reverting at all except for obvious vandalism. In the event that an edit of yours is challenged, I would like you to discuss this on the talk page citing references rather then waiting 24 hours and having a revert then. Also, do not simply revert any user without using a personalised edit summary that explains what you have done and why. I will be watching your contributions closely. I do not want to see you edit warring in any way shape or form. You escaped a ban by the skin of your teeth and there is exceedlingly little patience left for your antics. In short, the message is very stark, ensure that you only edit in a collaborative and constructive manner or you will be blocked and this time there will be no way back.

You will need to build up a considerable level of trust before anyone will be prepared to give you any more slack. I suggested on ANI that after 6 months you can apply there to have relaxation but there was no consensus on whether or not this was too strict. In the first instance, if you last that long, I suggest that you leave me a note in 3 months to see whether it is worth seeking a relaxation. Alternatively you can just ask at ANI but I strongly counsel against this unless there is a clear feeling that this is worthwhile.

You have not been placed under formal mentorship but I am very familar with your case and am more than happy to take any questions or help deal with any problems. You have been given a final chance that many editors did not believe that you deserve. I strongly recommed that you make the most of this. Spartaz 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)