Hello, 蘇州宇文宙武! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Abce2|AccessDenied01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This revert on Joseon Dynasty was inappropriate; the page is already the focus of a major dispute and mediation is being sought. You shouldn't make contentious reverts without consensus, especially not without even giving a rationale (in your edit summary or elsewhere). Please keep to the discussion at the talk page and do not edit war in the article while discussion is ongoing. If you continue, you may be blocked. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking any sides in this dispute; if you looked into the article history and Historiographer's edit history, you will see that I have blocked him recently for edit warring, and have reverted him. I don't care which side is right, I just don't want to see edit warring. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said many times, at this point anyone who edits the article without consensus is "wrong". Clearly no one agrees what to put, so no matter how right you think you are, you have no more right to "protect" your preferred version than Historiographer has to "protect" his. None of you guys should be editing the article directly until the mediation is over. If edit warring begins again (you suggested in your post at the mediation page that you intend to edit war more), I will not hesitate to fully protect the article from editing, and/or block people who are edit warring. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This, same revert as the one above, in the middle of a dispute, no explanation. Please take this time off to think about collaboration and familiarize yourself with both Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW policies, and when you come back to do not revert like this again. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:57, 11 July 2009 (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).
You said that I reverted another unexplained edit warring, but actually I reverted with the reason: Great? Haha! sovereign state? The name of Joseon was given by China. Don't you see it? And I don't violate 3rr in 24 hours.
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.
3RR is only one form of edit warring. Reverting when you know there is no consensus, and have been warned as such, and when the article is already highly controversial and in the middle of mediation, is clearly edit warring. It has already been made very clear that editors should not be doing this. You were warned yesterday, you knew you were not supposed to revert like this. Just because you think your editing is "right" doesn't mean there is consensus for it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you missed the bold text at WP:3RR: 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring that have not violated 3RR.rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...You still can't deny that Joseon is a 藩属 (vassal state) of China.
If tributaries are 藩属. Then, Japan (before Qing), Vietnam, Ryukyu were also 藩属 (vassal state) of China. But, why you did not change Vietnam, Ryukyu, Japan article? Are you double standard? And I personally think Ryukyu was Chinese Kingdom. Go to ryukyu article, and play there. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's not a full revert, you shouldn't be making controversial wording changes like this when an article is being disputed and is pending mediation. For what it's worth, I prefer the wording you added (not because I have a stake either way in the argument, but just because it reads better), but still I had to revert it because it's not appropriate at this time. No changes like this should be made without suggesting them at the talk page. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many times I need to say this: nobody should be doing anything to that part of the article without discussion first. No matter how much "better" you think it is.
My two cents: replace "sovereign state" with 'kingdom' or whatnot in the lede, and add a new section near the beginning saying something along the lines of "whether Joseon was a sovereign state or not is disputed" and then summarizing the arguments, along with sources, that have been discussed at the talk page.
But you should not implement that change in the article directly. Start a discussion at the talk page making that suggestion, and see what other involved editors think. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the message I just sent you? I specifically said do not add those words to the article; I said start a discussion at the talk page.
Perhaps you misunderstood my message, since I presume English is not your first language. But let me be clear: no one should be editing this part of the article directly. All edits should be discussed beforehand at the talk page. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the talkpage already was not about creating a compromise in the article, it was an argument about whose version of history was right and whose was wrong. The thread I started is different.
I don't know what you find so complicated. It's very simple: because the article is in the middle of a dispute, no one involved should make edits without discussing them first. If you can't understand that, then you should just leave. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
