User talk:Cherry Blossom OK

Archives

Nihon Shoki

Thanks for you input, but I have to disagree. It is true that the events recorded in the Nihon Shoki can conflict with other records, but this merely shows that it is biased. It does not necessarily mean it is wrong, it means that it's taking a side or a point of view. And I would like to keep biased when it comes to early Korean relations in there, because the vast bulk of the Nihon Shoki is not about Korean relations. Outside controversial sections near the beginning (about early emperors and Korean interactions), it is generally accepted as reliable, therefore it would be unfair to imply that the entire document is unreliable. I hope we can come to an understanding. (PS: I'm not sure why you changed Horyu-ji back to Horyuji, on Wikipedia it is standard to use the hyphen). AMorozov (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fair enough. AMorozov (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SamckBot

"Are we human or are we dancer?" I am certainly human, though SmackBot is a set (or sets) of rules for WP:AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 09:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot isn't, I am. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

1RR article probation violation block

I'm sorry, but your revert on Liancourt Rocks dispute violated the terms of the article probation listed at the top of Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute. Specifically, the terms state the following regarding reverting changes:

No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that if another editor disagrees with your edit the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit.

Because of this, you have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use that time to carefully review the Suggested Rules of Engagement at the top of Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute and please let me know if you have any question. Again, I apologize for having to do this, but the rules for that page are very clearly spelled out. Thank you for your future cooperation on this matter. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 18 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).

Cherry Blossom OK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, Nihonjoe. I appreciate your neutral stance till now. But, this block is really can't understand . 1. I never violation wikipedia rule, even if i'm not vio 3rr. 2. I first heard 1RR violation block. 3. You did not warning to me 4. it is just content dispute. It is not violation of wikipedia rule

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee has placed this article on "article probation" at WP:ARBLIANCOURT - anyone editing that page is restricted under 1RR, and this is clearly laid out on the article's talk page. Edit warring is not tolerated on that page at all. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

QUOTE: "You did not warning to me" - it is your responsibility to read the preamble on the article talk page. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not knew such rule. Anyway, I will not touch Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute for 24 hours. This block reason is very strange. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how the rules are, the rules are there. As grown men, you and me, we all have the responsibility to adhere to them. 24 hours isn't eternity. It's just so that it never happens again. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 李博杰. OK. But, I first know this rule, This is unfair, man. I did not recieve warning about this. Anyway, if unblock me, I will not edits wikipedia for next 24 hours. I am not want this bad block record to my ID. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:44, 18 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).

Cherry Blossom OK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not recieve warning about this. I will not edits wikipedia for next 24 hours

Decline reason:

The warning is very clearly laid out on the talk page. It clearly states that violating 1RR will result in a block. If you aren't going to edit Wikipedia for 24 hours, then the block will be gone by the time you get back. In order to be fair to everyone, this must be equally enforced. Again, I'm sorry this had to be done, but the rules for working on that article are very clear. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Update Talk:Baekje

Baekjewas updated.[1] Please write the opinion. --青鬼よし (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

Hi Cherry Blossom OK, I've posted a response to your edits on the Liancourt Rocks dispute talk page. I came to your talk page to let you know about the 1RR rule in force on that article, but seeing as you've been blocked in the past for breaking that very rule, I take it you're already aware of the rule. I guess you don't want a bad track record on your ID as you say - in which case, why are you breaking this rule again? Also, can you also explain why you posted a 3RR warning on my talk page [2] - how did I break the 3RR rule when I've only made one edit? Looking forward to your response to the two questions.Phonemonkey (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cherry Blossom OK, I didn't check the date stamp on your original 1RR ban & didn't realise it was for the same 1RR breach. Hope you've read the rules now - they are in place because of tiresome edit wars in the past. I still don't understand the 3RR, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS warning templates you posted on my talk page, given that so far I have only made one edit to the article (to which 3RR does not apply), and the edit was removal of material (in other words, impossible to breach WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS rules) - but that's less important. Phonemonkey (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ticket Dabang

A tag has been placed on Ticket Dabang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:06, 18 November 2013 (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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Hyundai new equus(KDM) (5).jpg

The file File:Hyundai new equus(KDM) (5).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused locally, no reason to retain local copy per WP:NOTWEBHOST

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CptViraj (📧) 16:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]