User talk:Blizzardstep0

Regional Power

Hi there, your recent edits to the Regional power article have been misguided it seems, replying to why I removed your addition with "ok?" then simply restoring your addition is counter productive. If you can find a reliable source that says SK is CURRENTLY a regional power then it can be included. 'Could' does not equal 'is'. Thank you. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G20 template

Why are you replacing the {{Current G20 Leaders}} template with the {{G20}} template in country articles?
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 15:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You replied:

`Current G20 Leaders` Template is G20 leaders section, but not the countries section. Blizzardstep0 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. I see no "G20 leaders section".

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 16:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uniting for Consensus

Please, stop your disruptive edits and use the discussion page to submit your changes. Enok (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Uniting for Consensus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

· Andonic ^contact 07:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dae-jung

What's going on with Kim Dae-jung? Just "don't like" vandalism? Not knowing the language nor customs makes it really difficult. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm Sumone10154. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kim Dae-jung, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, –sumone10154^(talk) 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kim Dae-jung shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tgeairn (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it appears that you are attempting to undo vandalism to the article, without edit summaries it is difficult to understand your motives. For instance, you keep restoring "15th president", when the sources indicate he is the 8th president. In the future, please use the edit summary to describe your changes and the reasoning behind the changes. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dae-jung

I have requested page protection wp:rfpp. I would suggest waiting until the page is protected. If the edit is obvioiusly vandalism, put "reverting vandalism". If the vandalism is in Korean, like "nuclear penguin", explain that. Reverting vandalism is not limited by wp:3RR BTW. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

요약을 수정

편집 요약을 사용하십시오! 감사합니다 Jim1138 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:G20

Template:G20 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your article about Kim dae jung, It's pretty good article and I could get much information from it. Tksgk262 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]