User talk:Rayesworied

Opening comment

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to developed country, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you

what??? what??? u don't understand english?? didu even read what i have said? goto discusstion page and read what i have said. u r the one editing without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary look who's talkingHawkchoi (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

u never gave any valid reason for editing the article. what is ur reason? korean POV? how can telling the truth be POV? go and start a debate in the discussion page don't just edit without having a debate. if u can't debate just don't talk at allHawkchoi (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Developed country. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hawkchoi (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

u r a coward, come to discussion page and face me like a man. u know u r going to get badly owned by me that is why u r just editing without debatingHawkchoi (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Las Vegas has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ^LeaveSleaves 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re edits to Las Vegas (disambiguation). There is a reason why pages are where they are after long discussions to reach a consensus. I suggest that before you go into this area, you take the time to read and understand why things are the way they are. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your edit history, it appears that virtually all of your edits have been removed for various reasons. If you continue this disruptive behavior, you run the risk of having an administrator block you as a vandal! You have been pointed to the sand box for testing. Consider being blocked without additional warnings as a real possibility if you continue to edit the way you have. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging market

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from emerging markets. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please look here. MSCI list of emerging markets mentions Israel rather than Argentina. HOOTmag (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 2

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from emerging market. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from developed market. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please look here. MSCI list of emerging markets mentions Israel rather than Argentina. HOOTmag (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of warning template

Please be more careful about adding warning templates. This edit here was a complete inappropriate use of a warning template as a valid reason was justifiably given. If you actually check the source once in a while before reverting, the correct number of countries is 66 and not 67. Continuing to improperly use a warning template can result in a block. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 3

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to developed market, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to emerging markets, you will be blocked from editing.

Israel will be deleted from MSCI emerging market list - in May 2010. By then - Israel is still on the list, as you can see in the MSCI source. HOOTmag (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to South Korea. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Seb az86556 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning-templates as you did here and here. Discuss changes you would like to see implemented on the appropriate talkpage. Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I've started a sock puppet investigation here. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You have been warned about your disruptive behavior and abuse of warning templates. Your recent edits such as this this edit has been reverted because this was a complete and inappropriate use of a warning template. Based on your history, I wouldn't be surprised if this was an indefinite block. The next time you inappropriately use a warning template on another users' talk page can and will most likely result in you being blocked from editing. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 12:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and inappropriate "warnings". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your e-mail

Do you have a source for any of this? Just saying you're from South Korea doesn't automatically make you right, and Wikipedia is based on verifiability, which means we don't add anything we can't find a source for. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is the case, you are welcome to start a discussion at Talk:South Korea when your block expires. But just edit warring at the article and insisting that everyone should listen to you because you are right, is not an appropriate form of discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have re-blocked you for 3 more days because you are continuing to use sock puppets to evade your block, including edit warring [1]. If you ever want to be able to edit here again, you need to demonstrate that you will not use sockpuppets anymore, and that you understand the edit warring policy and are willing to abide by it, and willing to engage in discussion rather than edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have continued to evade your block, this time with W950712, I have made your block permanent. If you disagree and wish to be unblocked, you can follow the instructions in the box above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rayesworied, you cannot come back and appeal a block by creating another sock puppet and editing with it in order to regain trust in the community; that's not how it works. We already have various channels for you to appeal a ban. One is to directly request an unblock on your Rayesworied account using the {{unblock}} template. Second is to email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia. Third is to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia. You may also want to read the standard offer as a way to help you come back and appeal your ban. Creating additional sock puppets in the meantime only drains the community's patience and makes it less likely that you will be freely able to edit here again. Thank you, MuZemike 18:49, 11 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I apologise for the things of the past. I want to make a fresh start.

Decline reason:

Unconvincing. You do not show that you understand the reasons for your block and you do not tell us why we should trust you again. Sandstein 11:08, 12 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I agree block reason. I'm very sorry. I admit many mistakes. And I regret many mistakes. I want to make a fresh start.

Decline reason:

Still unconvincing. You do not show that you understand the reasons for your block and you do not tell us why we should trust you again. You've exhausted our patience already. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:18, 12 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have self-reflection. I will never do such a thing again. In the future, I will give good contributions. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

No details showing that user understands reason for block or has specific plans for editing differently. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 13 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I promise these subjects
(1) Do not make multiple accounts.
(2) Do not promote edit war.
(3) No original research.
(4) Do not make cause trouble.

Decline reason:

No response. TNXMan 11:58, 14 October 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.

What specific plans do you have to achieve these ends? Specifically 2, 3, and 4, since 1 is pretty straight-forward. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:32, 13 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I promise these subjects
(1) Do not make multiple accounts.
(2) Do not promote edit war.
(3) No original research.
(4) Do not make cause trouble.
My goal is to return to a good contributor.

Decline reason:

Asked and answered. Don't just ask the other parent. You have to convince us we can trust you. I suggest you have worn out the patience of the community and need to take some substantial time off. I suggest not making any further requests for at least 3 months, preferably 6 months, and during that time do not use sockpuppets to evade the block. Mango juice^talk 14:42, 14 October 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.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claimd for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, I have multiple accounts. But, because I want to do good contributions. I promise these.
(1) No edit war
(2)Do good contributions
(3)No personal attack
(4)No vandalism
(5)No abuse multiple accounts
Past edit war I'm sorry. But today, I'm not vandalizing user. I have reflect my mistake. Thanks. I will only small contributions for a while.

Decline reason:

You still have not addressed the concerns of the admins above in a convincing way, and have not taken their advice to refrain from sockpuppeting for 3-6 months to prove that you are being honest. Because you are continuing to abuse the unblock template, I am removing your talkpage privileges. If you still wish to contest the block, you may use the e-mail address MuZeMike provided above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:48, 1 December 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.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]