User talk:Traineek

February 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Goguryeo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Esiymbro (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. To cut to the chase: I don't think your recent edits to Sui dynasty and Tang dynasty are helpful. Please keep in mind that not all Chinese Wikipedians agree with the recent edits to Goguryeo. Also, please be aware of the "three-revert rule (3RR)". Bamnamu (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Hello Traineek! Your additions to Great Wall of China have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. _dk (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Esiymbro (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Traineek, since you did not heed the warning above, normally now someone should take this to WP:AN3, which would normally result in you being blocked. On the bright side, you seem quite new at this, so the block might be rather limited in time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Esiymbro (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 ~~~~}}.  Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: @Wretchskull: @Aza24: @Beeblebrox: @Ericgyuminchoi:

1. First of all, I would like to apologize for not been able to follow the Wiki rules to edit a page as I am new to this.

2. User Esiymbro lied about me resorting to personal attacks. I would challenge him to provide the evidence for his claim that i ever resorted to personal attacks.

3. My contribution to the page of great wall of china are well sourced. in fact it wasn't even reversed for the content itself, but more of i didn't get the consensus from editors which I mentioned above I wasn't sure how to do it back then.

4. There is systematic sabotage against me from a certain group of people that according to the WIKI are mainly Chinese speakers.

5.

• The very first time my contribution got reversed for word-for-word plagiarism of the sources by Editor Underbar dk in 17:29, 2 March 2021?.
• So i rephrased my content and posted it again the next day. and on 09:39, 3 March 2021, editor Ouatssss--23 amended my content, saying only Korean scholars showing skepticism.
• So i provided extra links to show that non-Koreans are showing skepticism as well.
• Until here, the dispute is not on adding the controversy section itself rather the details of the content.
• It was then the user Esiymbro started sabotaging my contribution with reason that i didn't get consensus in talk page. I was not aware what that meant at that time exactly, so i reverted the content and wrote my reason while editing again on the edit page.
• Then Esiymbro kept reversing my content several times. and it drew attention from other editors and gave an impression that i am vandalizing the page.

Basically, that was the main reason my contribution got so many reverses mostly from user Esiymbro, it has nothing to do with the content itself, but more of intentional sabotage by Esiymbro to censor my contribution.

Basically, both South and North Korea, and some experts in the field are refuting the claims by China that the great wall of China ever extended all the way into Korean peninsula and even questioning whether some of the walls in Liaodong area should be included in the great wall of China as some of the walls were Goguryeo walls built to defend against China. and China has been revising the length of the great wall of China since 2001, the same year China started the controversial North-East project to rewrite the history of the ancient nations that existed in modern day Chinese territory in the region. These are all factual events that anyone can find online covered by all major news agencies. I am not making things up and there should be no reason to silence the fact that not everyone agrees with the China's modern day claim and therefore the controversy section need to be added. if anyone has different opinion on my contribution, we can have a discussion, but censoring the controversy section completely is not in line with the purpose of the Wikipedia as open platform for exchanging ideas and presenting voices from all sides to give audience a broad understanding of the topic.

--Traineek (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Re. #2, "User Esiymbro lied ..." well, saying that another editor lies is usually seen as a personal attack (PA) in Wikipedia discussions. So whether or not there was a previous PA, there is one now.

Re. #3, "... it wasn't even reversed for the content ...": one of the reverts was mine, and sure, I can confirm that my revert *was* for the content. So, saying that it wasn't for the content seems a little facile way of denying facts.

Re. #4 (you being thwarted by a group of whatever) – that's called WP:ASPERSIONS, I'd retract that for that reason.

Re. #5, 4th bullet, "... the dispute is not on adding the controversy section itself ..." – well, the discussion *is* at least in part about "adding the controversy section itself", per WP:CRITICISM, I thought I had been clear about that.

In sum, I'd make a few less assumptions about other editors, and no assumptions at all about their motivations, so we can talk about whether the proposed *content* is viable or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• You are blocked for edit warring. why you were edit warring is irrelevant. Whether or not your editorial position was correct is also irrelevant. Discussion on the talk page is what you do instead of edit warring, not in addition to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: @Wretchskull: @Aza24: @Beeblebrox: @Ericgyuminchoi:

Re: Re. #2, I believe administrators should be objective and reasonable when it comes to disputes like this. first of all, I think it is important for you to go through the talk page and find out if really made a personal attack. User Esiymbro made an untrue accusation against me saying I resorted to personal attack, So I called it a lie, and you are saying it is a personal attack to call an untrue accusation a lie. so what should i do to show my objection to the false accusation against me? just accept it as truth?

Re: Re. #3, "one of the reverts was mine, and sure, I can confirm that my revert *was* for the content. " - Okay, which content do you think is false and should not be included at all? please specify. if true I will amend.

Re: Re. #4, (you being thwarted by a group of whatever), but that's what happened. at first my contribution was reversed for word for word plagiarism. Neither talk page nor censensus. it was plagiarism. Therefore, I rephrased the whole text and posted it again the next day. Then user Ouatssss--23 made an amendment by adding a word Korean in my content to emphasize that the claim is made by only Koreans. So i provided extra source to back my claim that non-Koreans are also showing skepticism about China's continuous revise of the length of the great wall since 2001. Until Here, the reversal had nothing to do with consensus in talk page. Then Esiymbro reversed my contribution several times with the reason that i didn't get consensus in talk page. I didn't know what talk page at that time was, so it ended up look like an edit war.

In sum, i engaged in a edit war unknowingly and i will avoid doing that again since now i know how to post and sign my name in talk page. and lastly, back to the topic. please feel free to give me your idea on my below contribution and tell me why this should not be included in controversy section? --Traineek (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• See my previous remark. Also, it is impossible to edit war unknowingly, in particular since you were warned about it, right here on this page, five days before the block. If you couldn't be bothered after recieving that warning to try and actually understand it, that's entirely your problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: it takes two hands to clap, and i don't know why you are siding the other party on this issue unconditionally even if the other party made an untrue accusation against me saying that i resorted to personal attacks. but i don't really care now. Anyway, This is a meaningless discussion, it's over and i'm not asking for undo the block. I will just wait until it expires but i will not hesitate to refute the untrue accusations from Esiymbro like i resorted to personal attacks which is a lie. Now I just want to know if I am allow to add content to the wiki page after the block is over.

Below are the 3 main points that I will include in the great wall page :

1. China has been revising the length of the great wall of China since 2001, the same year China started the controversial North east project.

2. The wall has been a source of controversy between China and North Korea since 2009 CE when the Chinese government claimed they had only recently discovered portions of the Great Wall close to the border with North Korea by the Hushan Mountains. North Korea claims that is the Goguryeo's Cheolli Jangseong, the defensive walls built by the ancient Korean Kingdom to defend against China's invasion.

3. China claims that the Great Wall, ordered by Emperor Qin Shi Huang who unified China's kingdoms during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, extended through North Korea's Chongchon River and reached up to the Taedong River estuary although there is no archaeological evidence to back the claim. Both North and South Korea and some non Korean experts and scholars are skeptical about China's claim.

the three points mentioned above are all facts with source. No made up, no fabrication, the controversy exists, i don't know how completely ignoring the fact that the controversy exists is constructive to healthy discussion. --Traineek (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that this is a pointless discussion since you are making arguments that have no relation to the reason you were blocked, which, once again, was edit warring. It's extremely simple: don't edit war and you won't get blocked for edit warring. Admins to not have authority over content, so I can't just declare your edits ok, you need to continue discussing it on the talk page and/or pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esiymbro (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

Since 2001, China has been revising the length of the great wall of China every few years. In 2009, North Korea refuted China's claims of the Great Wall that extend to Dandong suggesting that what claims to be the easternmost outpost of China's Great Wall is in fact part of Goguryeo's Cheolli Jangseong, which is part of a separate monument altogether from China's Great Wall. In June 2012, China claims that the Great Wall is actually 2.5 times longer at 13,171 miles (21197 kilometers) compared to 4500 miles (7,300 kilometers) as previously believed from Jiayu Pass in Gansu province in the west to Shanhai Pass in Hebei province in the northeast, by including the walls not built by the Ming dynasty in the definition of the Great Wall. In 2012, in an interview with The Atlantic, Seoul-based writer Stephane Mot said: "I'm very suspicious. China wants to rewrite history to make sure history conforms with the borders of today's China." Sinologist Nicola Di Cosmo view the remnants of walls constructed with tamped earth and stone in Inner Mongolia and Liaoning province that are attributed to the Yan and Qin periods by Chinese scholars as the cultural remains of ancient nomadic Donghu peoples. Di Cosmo specifically states that these defensive fortifications that were built by non-Chinese nomads were to potentially control the movements of diverse peoples in the prehistoric region and to defend the non-agricultural territory from some external threat..

References

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Traineek reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: ). Thank you. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for an apparent inability or unwillingness to understand and follow even the most basic policies and concepts of what Wikipedia is and how it works.

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 ~~~~}}.  Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: is this lifetime ban?--Traineek (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What it is is described in the above notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

What does "apparent inability or unwillingness to understand and follow even the most basic policies and concepts of what Wikipedia is and how it works" even mean? I was blocked for 31 hours already for not getting consensus before editing and after block expiry and i have been trying to get consensus in talk page ever since. How is that unwilling to learn and follow wiki rules? About personal attack, i dont remember ever personal attack. pls specify. Traineek (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

When other users try to explain things to you, for whatever reason you never seem to understand what they are trying to tell you. This may be because you aren't really paying attention and trying to learn, or it may be something else entirely, it doesn't really matter which it is. There's more context in my post in the thread at ANI,which I pinged you in and noted in your block log. You are free to file an appeal at any time but I would urge you to spend some real time trying to understand why this has happened before you do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)