User talk:Neyagawa

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Neyagawa, 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! cab (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic classification of the Korean language

Your recent edit to the page Korean language appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. The idea that Manchu or other Tungusic languages are part of the Buyeo family is not accepted. Beckwith (2007) would also disagree that Korean is a member of that family. cab (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Korean language, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

And I'm not a Chinese, so please don't throw out the bad faith accusations. --Caspian blue 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told to discuss your edits. Continuing to edit without doing so can and will be seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for persistent racist personal attacks and insults against other editors. The block duration is one week, for now. Should you continue your attacks, after the block or during it, you will be blocked permanently with no further warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 8 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did some racial slurs since I felt so sick to find lots of Chinese propagandists jobs here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a place for such a propaganda, isn't it?

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is also not the place for such personal attacks. There is no excuse for racism, and an argument of "But this is why I did it" does not excuse you from the rules against personal attacks. You are welcome to continue to edit constructively after your block expires. This unblock request does not address the reasoning for the block. Taelus (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Well it's acceptable to get this kind of penalty, but I'm sure they also need to be blocked from Wikipedia. Why do you let them do their propaganda jobs here?. It's well known that Chinese want to cut any relation between Korea and Manchu, as well documented in Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. With relation with the Korean language, such Chinese propagandists don't want to call Korean as Altaic, since Manchu is also Altaic, while Chinese is not. That's okay, what made really sick is that there's no match between their remarks and the references for them. For, example, Chinese wrote "Most modern linguists consider Korean to be a language isolate.' in Korean language, but in the referece they add, there's no word like that. Why do you allow them to do this sort of sly things that'll eventually spoil the whole Wipedia in the long run?

Decline reason:

Again you haven't really addressed your block, apart from apparently accepting it. Unblock requests are not for discussing other editors or Wikipedia itself. Wider issues can be taken up following the suggestions at WP:DR once your block expires. EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 8 February 2010 (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.

You have in fact also continued to call the editors you disagree with "Chinese propagandists" even in your unblock requests. That's still personal attacks. (As it happens, these editors are neither Chinese, nor are they propagandists, certainly not of Chinese positions.) If you can't accept that other editors here might in good faith have a well-informed perception of the state of current scholarship that differs from yours, and if your only way of interpreting those editors' stance is to assume they are "Chinese propagandists", then you probably have no place in this project. Think about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 8 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

They're probably be American in Chinese ancestry or something. How are you certain that they aren't Chinese positions? No one can sure anything before you see them in detail. That s Okay, then I won't call them Chinese propagandists any more. then why do you let these uneducated people do this editoring jobs who even love to add lots of references that has nothing to do with each statements? Even elementaty school students wouldn't make such a mistake what your beloved editors enjoy to committ. Take a look at Korean language, for example. your uneducated editors wrote "most modern linguists consider Korean to be a language isolate" with the reference of ?UNIQ737b6bb0e9e8eda-nowiki-0000000D-QINU?1?UNIQ737b6bb0e9e8eda-nowiki-0000000E-QINU?, where there's no such word. It's okay I'm block for good from this stupid Wikipedia, BULLSHIT!

Decline reason:

You likely have some positive edits to perform, but they cannot be coupled with this type of abuse. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 8 February 2010 (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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As you choose to repeat, rather than retract racial commentary during your attempts to request unblock, I have removed the ability for you to repeat them by removing talkpage access for the duration of your block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Japan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Korea, you may be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Japan. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. ... discospinster _talk 21:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Vianello (Talk) 21:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to other editors with racially derogatory terms like "Jap" is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia, for any reason. Do not do this again; with your previous editing record, it will be more than grounds for an indefinite block. - Vianello (Talk) 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Im-hak Ree

A tag has been placed on Im-hak Ree 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 person or group of people, 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 biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 10:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]