| Revision as of 19:10, 12 June 2008 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →Reply: June 2008← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 12 June 2008 edit undo60.42.252.205 (talk) →ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> 3RR on ]. ] (]) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> 3RR on ]. ] (]) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock|'''Let us be honest and clear this is a knowingly contrived situation designed to maintain control of an article''' ... indeed, one I predicted the account would attempt. | |||
| --- All three editor performed the identical and total deletion of all of the work I am doing on the article. | |||
| --- All three removed entirely neutral copyedits. | |||
| --- None engaged in any discussion | |||
| --- None had previous sought to address the tags at the top of the article. | |||
| --- I do not challenge any of the claims on the article nor have I ever suggested that Korean women were signing up in droves so, please, get real. | |||
| --- I have attempted discuss with all parties and on the topic page. | |||
| --- And it is entirely accurate to represent, as I have done, that there was an existing sex industry in Korea prior to, during, and after the Japanese invasion (indeed, it expanded considerable during the American invasion). If war is anything, it is crime by men against women regardless of race or nationality. I am not Asian, putting this topic into shape is going to require an impartial hand. | |||
| ---The intention behind Caspian's assault is far to transparent. He even presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR! --] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 19:21, 12 June 2008
I performed some mainly copyedits on the contentious Comfort Women page which carries two major tags requiring work. I responded to other editors reasonable questions.
Very shortly after, I received a number of increasingly hysteria warning threats and revisions from a Pro-Korean editors Caspian_blue .
I recognised that I was being set up in an attempted WP:3RR or IP admin that would support his POV and post a note of this on his page ... preempting exactly what I suspected 1 minute later .
Then followed a complaint by the user to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism.
What I am doing is plainly not vandalism. I have added quotations on both sides of the argument, whittle down the written English and am attempting to address the main tags at the top of the page. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits but not be subjected to intimidation in this manner. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Comfort women. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Reply
Caspian blue has reverted you on Comfort women exactly one time. That is not edit warring. Two other editors have also reverted your changes to that article (well, three now if you count me). You have undone the changes of each of those editors. That is considered edit warring regardless of the merits of your claim. I see you have switched to discussing the matter on the article talk page, that is good. I trust you will not revert the article again without establishing consensus. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3RR on Comfort women. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
60.42.252.205 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Let us be honest and clear this is a knowingly contrived situation designed to maintain control of an article ... indeed, one I predicted the account would attempt.--- All three editor performed the identical and total deletion of all of the work I am doing on the article. --- All three removed entirely neutral copyedits. --- None engaged in any discussion --- None had previous sought to address the tags at the top of the article. --- I do not challenge any of the claims on the article nor have I ever suggested that Korean women were signing up in droves so, please, get real. --- I have attempted discuss with all parties and on the topic page. --- And it is entirely accurate to represent, as I have done, that there was an existing sex industry in Korea prior to, during, and after the Japanese invasion (indeed, it expanded considerable during the American invasion). If war is anything, it is crime by men against women regardless of race or nationality. I am not Asian, putting this topic into shape is going to require an impartial hand.
---The intention behind Caspian's assault is far to transparent. He even presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR! --60.42.252.205 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2='''Let us be honest and clear this is a knowingly contrived situation designed to maintain control of an article''' ... indeed, one I predicted the account would attempt. --- All three editor performed the identical and total deletion of all of the work I am doing on the article. --- All three removed entirely neutral copyedits. --- None engaged in any discussion --- None had previous sought to address the tags at the top of the article. --- I do not challenge any of the claims on the article nor have I ever suggested that Korean women were signing up in droves so, please, get real. --- I have attempted discuss with all parties and on the topic page. --- And it is entirely accurate to represent, as I have done, that there was an existing sex industry in Korea prior to, during, and after the Japanese invasion (indeed, it expanded considerable during the American invasion). If war is anything, it is crime by men against women regardless of race or nationality. I am not Asian, putting this topic into shape is going to require an impartial hand. ---The intention behind Caspian's assault is far to transparent. He even presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR! --] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1='''Let us be honest and clear this is a knowingly contrived situation designed to maintain control of an article''' ... indeed, one I predicted the account would attempt. --- All three editor performed the identical and total deletion of all of the work I am doing on the article. --- All three removed entirely neutral copyedits. --- None engaged in any discussion --- None had previous sought to address the tags at the top of the article. --- I do not challenge any of the claims on the article nor have I ever suggested that Korean women were signing up in droves so, please, get real. --- I have attempted discuss with all parties and on the topic page. --- And it is entirely accurate to represent, as I have done, that there was an existing sex industry in Korea prior to, during, and after the Japanese invasion (indeed, it expanded considerable during the American invasion). If war is anything, it is crime by men against women regardless of race or nationality. I am not Asian, putting this topic into shape is going to require an impartial hand. ---The intention behind Caspian's assault is far to transparent. He even presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR! --] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1='''Let us be honest and clear this is a knowingly contrived situation designed to maintain control of an article''' ... indeed, one I predicted the account would attempt. --- All three editor performed the identical and total deletion of all of the work I am doing on the article. --- All three removed entirely neutral copyedits. --- None engaged in any discussion --- None had previous sought to address the tags at the top of the article. --- I do not challenge any of the claims on the article nor have I ever suggested that Korean women were signing up in droves so, please, get real. --- I have attempted discuss with all parties and on the topic page. --- And it is entirely accurate to represent, as I have done, that there was an existing sex industry in Korea prior to, during, and after the Japanese invasion (indeed, it expanded considerable during the American invasion). If war is anything, it is crime by men against women regardless of race or nationality. I am not Asian, putting this topic into shape is going to require an impartial hand. ---The intention behind Caspian's assault is far to transparent. He even presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR! --] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}