User talk:Leemsj2075

This is talk page of Leemsj2075!

If you write a opinion to me, please sign like (~~~~) this before summit.
Write your new comments at the bottom of the talk page.
It's a user discussion document, so please write something especially polite.
If you write a discussion that lacks basic etiquette such as swearing or slandering, the talk will be deleted, and if you go too far, you will be referred to the user's management request.
My Korean wikipeida talk page is here.
여기는 영어 위키백과이므로 여기선 한국어 토론을 받지 않으며, 한국어로 토론을 작성하실 경우에는 이 토론 페이지로 이동됩니다.

Here is English Wikipedia so I don't take Korean, If you write in Korean, will be move to this talk page.

Etiquette · Assume good faith · No personal attacks · Please do not bite the newcomers

I am living in Korea and my first language is Korean. I usually contribute to Korean Wikipedia. Please refer to this point.

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ə XPLICIT 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liancourt Rocks

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Liancourt Rocks, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Please do not change the term Sea of Japan to East Sea in any article. As the talk page clearly spells out, you should not be doing this. Ə XPLICIT 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

checked.--Leemsj2075 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked--Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 06:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Liancourt Rocks. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Calton | Talk 00:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Liancourt Rocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ə XPLICIT 00:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Leemsj2075 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't edit like vandalism. As the edit note, I gave the regulation of nameing. Liancourt Rocks is Jap-Kor article. So why did you block for this reason?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (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.

Request Unblock(re)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Leemsj2075 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At first, Thank to wikipedia admin very much for improve wikipedia. I've blocked due to edit warring at Liancourt Rocks. I am understanded why I was blocked. And I was not edit purpose like Vandalism. However, I don't think it's right to unconditionally block an editorial dispute. Because, It is need to talk with other users, not block the disputed person. But, it was my fault not to open the talk page for edit warring. Therefore, I request to unblock my block. My block ID is #9910430. --Leemsj2075 01:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The block has expired. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——Serial^# 11:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Leemsj2075 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At first, thank you for admin of Wikipedia for help to make a better online wiki. I have blocked due to the edit warring. That is my fault that I made a edit warring. But, I wanted to discussion why I want to edit like this. And also, if the edit warring happen again, I'll go to talk page of that user and talk why I did this edit. And I'll follow guideline and regulation of Wikipedia. -- Leemsj2075 (Talk Contributions) 13:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's what you said last time you were blocked, and you didn't stick to it. Unblocking you now would run the risk of encouraging you to think you can just keep on making empty promises and getting away with it. JBW (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (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.

I have re-blocked you, for returning to the same edit-war you were blocked over earlier immediately on your return to Wikipedia. This time the block is indefinite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 20 November 2020 (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).

Leemsj2075 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to the regulation, editting war should return other's edit more more than three times in 24 hours a day. And I didn't just edit, I also had included why and some news article to explain. Are you hadn't seen that, or just ignored? I am sorry that I was blocked indefinitely by you. Furthermore, if somebody argue that my edit has problem, I would make a discussion page to discuss about that. --Leemsj2075 (Talk Contributions) 11:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Three times in 24 hours is a bright line to cross, but you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer edit reversions. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2020 (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.

Note that this is your fourth block for edit warring on that article (though one was an extension of an existing block). I concur with the block. As 331dot points out, you demonstrated you are determined to continue edit warring on that article. In fact, it appears to be the only thing you are interested in. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2020 (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).

Leemsj2075 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I mean, I could't understand why that edit was edit warring, I didn't just edit, I also mentioned such news article and why I did that edit. But, it was my fault to make somethjng to misunderstand. After you unblock or mitigate my block, I will not edit the document Liancourt Racks first, but make discussion page to heard other's opinion. I'm Koean, so I want everyone to know about the fact about Licancourt Rocks. So, please let me allow discuss with other's.

Decline reason:

Enough is enough. You have no interest in working collaboratively with other volunteers and cause nothing but disruption. Your time here is over. Ə XPLICIT 00:22, 29 November 2020 (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.

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).

Leemsj2075 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(My first language is Korean, so please understand that grammar may not be correct.} I think you(Explicit) tend to speak with preconceived not knowing the feelings of a slightly unjustly blocked person. And, shouldn't the person who executed the block first refute the article which I presented and block it? If I didn't present the article at the edit summary, it can be seen as unauthorized editing of a person with experience in edit warring. However, I presented the article and said why at the edit summary. And also, I didn't erase Sea of Japan, I just add the East sea of korea because of that article. Nevertheless, the admin who blocked me had ignored that and blocked me. Do you feel good when you're blocked like this? If you or any other admin is going to refuse this time again, please reply to the article I've presented. It is at the history of the document "Liancourt Rocks". According to the article, that say the Sea of Japan isn't official name of that area anymore. That's mean it has no reason to mark only Sea Of Japan. And I want to everyone of the wikipedia's admin not to look at users with preconceptions and biased views; judge objectively. Thank you for reading long script.

Decline reason:

Not only are you clearly in over your head in terms of language, you are traveling in circles. The last decline should have been accompanied by a revocation of talk page access so you will not further waste our time. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2020 (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.

}

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request UTRS 37928

@Daniel Case and Future Perfect at Sunrise: At UTRS appeal #37928 User agrees to not edit about Liancourt Rocks or the name of the body of water between Korea and Japan. May I unblock? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical. I don't really see what else this user could possibly edit in a productive manner. In the few instances where they've tried to edit something outside this single-issue agenda, they've produced illegible garbage [1]. But I won't be in the way of an unblock if you genuinely feel there is some potential for productive contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeww. English is not his best language. I believe high school graduate fluency is needed here. May need to stick to Korean. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I didn't unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a consensus to decline. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock declined

(For readability, will copy this to your talk page.) I'm sorry, but I'm unable to unblock you at this time

I have discussed unblocking you with the blocking admins. It is our consensus that you currently lack sufficient proficiency in English to contribute constructively. Please continue to contribute on the Korean Wikipedia. You may request unblocking on the English Wikipedia in six months on the following conditions.

The WP:TBAN on Liancourt Rocks or the name of the body of water between Korea and Japan will continue.
Please read WP:1RR. You must agree to that if you should be unblocked. You must explain in your own words the WP:BRD process. Please explain in your own words the alternatives to edit warring.
Given the concerns with your English proficiency, you must address the English proficiency concerns to be unblocked.
Any reviewing admin may add more conditions if they feel it is warranted, but I think I covered everything.

Sincerely, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]