User talk:Footwiks

Welcome!

Hello, Footwiks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Tikiwont (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Buckshot06

Hello, @user:Buckshot06

I forgot something to tell you when I left a farewell message on your talk page.

If dispute occur about ROK Marine Corps -"Spartan 3000" in the future and you participate in discussion again,

Please refer to ROK Marine Corps Official Answer from South Korean Government Petition Website or teach participants (maybe South Korean users) this Official Answer.

Step 1 - Please connect below link
https://www.epeople.go.kr/nep/pttn/gnrlPttn/pttnSmlrCaseList.npaid

Step 2 - Please put the keyword '신속기동부대' in the search box and press '검색' (search button).

Step 3 - You can check out below ROK Marine Corps Official Answer.

Title

해병대 신속기동부대 '스파르탄 3000'과 '제승부대' 관련 문의
Translation =>
Inquiry about ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE 'Spartan 3000' and Jeaseung Unit.

Contents

1.
2016년 언론에서 보도된 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭은 해병대에서 공식적으로 붙인 명칭이 아니며
현재 공식 명칭은 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)입니다.
Translation =>
ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - 'Spartan 3000' which announced by the the press in 2016.
Currently, official name is ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE.

2.
'제승부대(Jeseung Unit)'라고도 불렀지만 현재는 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)라는 명칭으로 통일해서
사용하고 있으며 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고
기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.
Translation =>
The name - 'Jeseung Unit' had been in use in ROKMC.
But, currently the name - 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE' is in use consistently.
ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not a newly formed Special Force Unit.
Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.

3.
현재 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭으로 운영되는 부대는 대한민국 해병대에 없습니다.
Translation =>
Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'.

Thanks,

Take care Footwiks (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To SarekOfVulcan and Robert McClenon

Hello, @user:SarekOfVulcan and @user:Robert McClenon

I read your comments in ANI.

Note also that his first action after the block was not to appeal, but to give proxy instructions on continuing the Spartan dispute. That's not a language issue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

As Sarek notes, Footwiks then tried to game the block. --Robert McClenon|talk 19:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding.

Firstly, Buckshot06 was the member of Spartan 300 discussion and Spartan 3000 discussion in DRN, Buckshot06 finally supported my opinion (Removal of Spartan 3000 on the list).

In Spartan 300 discussion, at that time, I received the Official Answer from the Republic of Korea Marine Corps and presented screenshot of this official answer in discussion.

Screenshot of official answer from ROKMC about Spartan 3000

But user:Thewolfchild said that this screenshot have possibility of forgery via photoshop, So user:Buckshot06 gave an advice to me as belows

"Now, Footwiks, there is a process for importing your ROKMC answer into Wikimedia Commons so that it can officially be used as a source. Go to the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team page to start the process: Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to upload of ROKMC answer into Wikimedia Commons and VRT process in Korean Wikipedia.

User:Buckshot06 also want to know situation update about ROKMC answer and asked me as follows. "How is the Ko-wiki VRT process going? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2023"

But VRT process had problem, So I asked ROKMC to move my answer into the Public Board of South Korean Government Petition Website.

(This process took much time, I couldn't inform user:Buckshot06 of the final situation.)

In DRN discussion, didn't reach a consensus, not long after that, user:Buckshot06 said to me.

"I still have the QMF issue in my thoughts - I will restart some kind of move - do not think you're forgotten. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)"

So I and Buckshot06 were planning to open the new discussion again in the future and as you see, ROKMC answer was the concern of user:Buckshot06.

But Before I was blocked indefinatly, I forgot to inform user:Buckshot06 of ROKMC answer's the final situation update.

Did you know this complicated history about the ROKMC answer involved user:Buckshot06?

I'm not sure that 'Spartan 3000' dispute occur again in the future. Also, I'm not sure that When dispute occur really again, user:Buckshot06 will join the discussion again or not. Also, I don't care that he will not join the discussion again.

Because It's up to the user:Buckshot06's own free will, But Buckshot06 asked me about situation of ROKMC answer at that time, So I just replied on my talkpage. That's all.

Are these the proxy instruction on Spartan dispute and Wikipedia:Gaming the system?, I don't think so.

Thanks for reading.

PS

To Robert McClenon.

You didn't understand the Spartan 3000 dispute in DRN, Because you TL;DR about my most comments. mabybe you TL;DR about my most comments in ANI.

Please don't judge the complicated issue before you get to know the issue in detail.

and

Please don't said to me in bossy tone. Wikipedia is not the company or military unit and You are not my Boss.

You are an just one of administrators of Wikipedia. Footwiks (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To SarekOfVulcan (about appealing blocks)

@user:SarekOfVulcan

I explained my real faults and just allegations in detail. I don't know that you checked out my comments thoroughly or TL;DR in ANI.

Anyways, You made a decision finally - Block with an expiration time of indefinite.

You are an administrator, So I respect your decision and I'll do self-reflection for now.

By the way, After your decision, Some questions arrised to me. "I was sincerely trying to provide better information in Wikipedia for 13 years,

"But I was blocked indefinitely like Users who has commited Sock Puppet account or vandalism

Honestly, I was deelply shocked and hurted.

I wonder..."Wikipedia is the worth to spend my precious time?"

(I'm not an English native speaker, about same editing or creating of articles, I have to spend much more time than English native speaker users.)

One more question,

I wonder..."Administrators who manager appealing blocks can check out my unblock request thoroughly, I worried TL;DR"

I was not fired in my company, Wikipedia is the just Internet Website and I just really wanted to contribute to improving Wikipedia voluntarily.

So to request unblock is not the urgent issue to me. Currently, I need time to organize my thoughts.

After I organize my thoughts, I'll raise an official appeal or not.

In conclusion, Please don't misunderstand my first action after your block decision.

Thanks for reading Footwiks (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Govvy

Hello, @user:Govvy

I read your comments about me in ANI. I really appreciate you taking the your precious time for me.

Unfortunately, the decision (block with an expiration time of indefinite) was made irretrievably.

I'm OK. I hope that you don't spend your precious time for me in ANI anymore.

I'm not sure that I'll raise official appeal and I'll be back Wikipedia in the future.

Even though I will not work on Wikipedia again in the future, I'll never forget your kindness as long as I live.

I wish you to be happy and healthy and thank you for everything you have done for me again.

Sincerely,

Footwiks

Footwiks (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for complete lack of understanding of other editors' concerns, and disruptive responses.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And since you are threatening editors about being blocked on other Wikipedias, talk page access removed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...

Fw, you gotta stop posting. You've been going non-stop since you were blocked, (80+ edits, 10kb+ over 12 consecutive hours). You are supposed to be using your talk page for unblock requests, not posting giants walls of text, pinging multiple editors, still trying to fight a content dispute, and making pointed remarks that could be considered rude. I'm surprised you haven't had your talk page access revoked already. (But that could still happen at any moment). You need to step away for a few months, (say... 3) and do a lot of reading, of as many of our policies & guidelines as you can (and learn them!) and also do a lot of thinking about how you went wrong, and what you can do to improve. Then when you're ready, come back and craft a solid unblock request. But jeez man... til then, you gotta stop all this and let it all go for awhile. You are not helping yourself. (JMHO) - wolf 10:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, Actually, I thought that you really want the blocking. Because maybe you don't want to discuss "Spartan 3000' again.

I deeply appreciate your fair play (You can maliciously report and left a comment: I support a WP:CIR block indefinitely, But You didn't it).

I was planning to open the new discussion about 'Spartan 3000' soon. Now, I'm not sure that I myself want to come back to Wikipedia sincerely.

Some user said to me in the ANI.

"A Wikipedia exists in Korean. See this. Perhaps you’ll be more ‘at home’there."

Maybe this user's opinion is right (Because any users don't point out - Don't use preview, Heavy use of bold letter. Long post in Korean Wiki)

When we had an dispute about 'Spartan 3000', I was convinced that you also definitely know what the truth is, But in order to win the discussion, You point out my mistakes about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (For example: Don't use preview, Heavy use of bold letter. Long post and so on.)

So I was annoyed and made some uncivil remarks.

I really sorry for my some uncivil remarks again. We didn't have good interactions and collaboration until now. If we can meet again in Wikipedia someday, I hope that we have a good interactions and collaboration, I have a pleasure working with you on some articles.

Anyways, I wish you to be happy and healthy.

Regards,

Footwiks

Footwiks (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say that you seemed to have missed one of the key points of my post; that you needed to stop posting, but it's too late now as I see your talk page access has just been revoked. Give the rest of my comments some thought. Apparently you read them, but now really give them some thought. You need to figure out what works here and what doesn't, regardless if you agree with it or not. If it comes to pass that you believe you have that figured out, then you can still request to be unblocked via WP:UTRS. There is no rush, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, so take your time. Good luck - wolf 17:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Wikipedia

I urge you to take the following reply, from a user on the Korean Wikipedia, to heart:

다만 과거부터 귀하께서 여러번 관련 내용들로 지적받은 것으로 확인됩니다. 여러번에 걸쳐서 관리 요청까지 회부되었는데도 계속되는 불찰로 인해 귀하께서 영어 위키백과 공동체의 신뢰를 얻지 못한 것이 아닐까 싶습니다.

대화는 이곳 한위백이 아닌 Footwiki님의 영어판 사용자토론에서 정식으로 차단 재검토를 요청하여 억울함을 호소하시는 것을 추천합니다.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So What? Footwiks (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it's your choice. Good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict occured, So I lost my post and I left post again.

English long post, TL;DR, I don't think that you check out Korean long post in Korean Wikipedia.

As you know, I enquired about my allegations in ANI. But criminator - user:Freedom4U finaly didn't reply.

After I was blocked, I enquired about my allegations on talk page of user:Freedom4U in Korean Wikipedia again.

At that time, Korean Wikipedia administrator interfered.

After Korean Wikipedia administrator get to know the issue in detail, Administrator gave me advice as belows.

You have to use translator, I'm not sure that you can understand context.

Below is the full prose.

다른 경로를 통해 해당 논쟁을 들어서 살짝 끼어들게 되었음을 알립니다.

해당 무기한 차단이 정당한지는 의문입니다. 영어 위키피디아는 한국어 위키백과와는 분위기와 정책이 좀 다르니 그럴 수도 있겠지만, Footwiki님의 억울함은 이해됩니다. 본인께서는 기여를 목적으로 소중한 시간을 투자해 문서를 작성하였고, (영위백에서는 한위백보다 심각하게 받아들이는 듯 하지만)조금의 실수로 차단 요청을 통보 받고, 분쟁으로 누구의 잘못인지 판단되지 않은 내용까지 차단 사유에 포함되었기 때문입니다.

다만 과거부터 귀하께서 여러번 관련 내용들로 지적받은 것으로 확인됩니다. 여러번에 걸쳐서 관리 요청까지 회부되었는데도 계속되는 불찰로 인해 귀하께서 영어 위키백과 공동체의 신뢰를 얻지 못한 것이 아닐까 싶습니다.

대화는 이곳 한위백이 아닌 Footwiki님의 영어판 사용자토론에서 정식으로 차단 재검토를 요청하여 억울함을 호소하시는 것을 추천합니다. 한국어 위키백과에서 F4U님께 따지는 것은 한위백 차원에서 어떠한 조치도 취할 수 없어 서로에게 피곤해지기만 하는 행위이며, 차단 재검토의 정당성을 약화시킬 뿐입니다. 적절히 소명하신다면 영위백 관리자와 F4U님께서도 이해해주실거라고 봅니다.

여기서의 대화는 멈추시길 바라며, 부디 분쟁이 잘 해결되길 바랍니다. 감사합니다.

Korean Wikipedia administrator supported me in some way (refer to bold sentences)

But Korean Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are totally different system.

For example, Korean Wikipedia puts great value on below sourcing guidelines.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages

Therefore, To use primary source (Getty Image) in commemoration section don't have problem.

Today, I added [section commemoration section] you deleted in Korean Wikipedia Association football culture article.

If you repeatedly delete commemoration section in Korean Wikipedia, Absolutely, You'll be blocked due to vandalism.

In Korean List of military special forces units article, If some user repeatedly add the ROK Marine Corps 'Spartan 3000' on the list, this user will be blocked due to adding of fake information,.

The gist is that Korean Wkipedia administrator don't have any influence on English Wikipedia.

I was blocked in English Wikipedia, Please don't associate my blocking with Korean Wikipedia.

Anyway, Thanks for your advice.

Enjoy your time, You won by default. I was blocked indefinatly, I can't participate in the commemoration cection (second discussion) any more.

Footwiks (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FIFA Women's World Cup songs has been nominated for deletion

Category:FIFA Women's World Cup songs has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dutchy45 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Son Ho-jun (disambiguation)

The article Son Ho-jun (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1988 Summer Olympics bids has been nominated for splitting

Category:1988 Summer Olympics bids has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #84361

is declined. No more requests prior to 2025-02-02, please. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports broadcasters has been nominated for merging

Category:Sports broadcasters has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Buyout (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buyout (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buyout (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]