User talk:Wfumie
Liancourt Rocks
[edit]Could you please explain on Talk:Liancourt Rocks why you reverted my edit? Your version focuses too much on a single point (the ICJ), and claims without evidence that both country's claims go back hundreds of years. Your version doesn't adequately summarize the Liancourt Rocks dispute article, which is what that section would do. If I don't here from you in a few days, I'll put back in my revised version, because yours definitely seems wrong to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian,
Hello. Thanks for your message. I know the South Korea claimed their sovereignty over the islets according to some old documents which they claimed written several hundred years ago. But, like you said, Japanese government did not do it, so I changed the edit. Thanks for your point-out.Wfumie (talk) 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Your edits at Liancourt Rocks have the appearance of being heavily tendentious; moreover, many of them are in poor English. Please propose your changes on the talk page first to allow discussion and corrections before editing the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise,
I don't think my edit at Liancourt Rocks has any tendency. Also I don't think my English is poor nor I don't know your English is very good, so please do not write any stupid rude message again. Wfumie (talk) 18 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Wfumie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's because I edited the page of Liancourt Rocks according to the truth on some newspaper, though the user think my editing is prejudiced and the user blocked me from editing the page.
He didn't mention any reasons why my editing is wrong, though he suddenly blocked me from the page.
This guy, according to the page's edit history, seems to have the preference to South Korea and tends to delete or reject any edition which shows negative images to South Korea. My editing seems negative to Korea in his point of view, I think, because I edited the page in the section of "Dispute between South Korea and Japan", saying "Both nations' claims extend back at least several hundred years. Therefore, since 1954, Japanese Government has been proposing to South Korea that the dispute be referred to International Court of Justice, although South Korean Government has been rejecting the proposal".
Please unblocke my account to edit the page and I hope you will give the user named Future Perfect at Sunrise a warning not to do this rude thing again.
Thank you.
Decline reason:
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.
Wfumie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's because I edited the page of Liancourt Rocks according to the truth on some newspaper, though the user think my editing is prejudiced and the user blocked me from editing the page.
He didn't mention any reasons why my editing is wrong, though he suddenly blocked me from the page.
This guy, according to the page's edit history, seems to have the preference to South Korea and tends to delete or reject any edition which shows negative images to South Korea. My editing seems negative to Korea in his point of view, I think, because I edited the page in the section of "Dispute between South Korea and Japan", saying "Both nations' claims extend back at least several hundred years. Therefore, since 1954, Japanese Government has been proposing to South Korea that the dispute be referred to International Court of Justice, although South Korean Government has been rejecting the proposal".
Please unblocke my account to edit the page and I hope you will give the user named Future Perfect at Sunrise a warning not to do this rude thing again.
Thank you.
The administrators sysytem in Wikipedia is being collapsed, I think. Please reconsider to make up the new system. Don't let some crazy administorators abuse some sincere users.
Decline reason:
Reposting the same unblock appeal will not get it accepted. Your unblock appeals must address your conduct, not levy attacks at others. If you continue to do so, your block may be extended and you will lose the ability to appeal on this page. Please read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:GAB before appealing again. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Comment I don't think the user deserves to be blocked. I also don't think the user's edit was tendentious[1] or disruptive[2] as Future Perfect at Sunrise pointed out. The most of the edits by the user except the last six edits are still remain in the article without being reverted.[3] I don't think even the last six edits[4] are so contentious to be reverted. Also, there is no prior warning of block before this block at all. I think this three day block is quite harsh for the first time. Since it is almost 1day and 15 hour since the user was blocked, I think it is the time to unblock the user. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Unblock Request
[edit]{{unblock | reason=It's because I edited the page of Liancourt Rocks according to the truth on Global Secury Org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/liancourt.htm), which is trusted and even often-referenced in the media, and some newspapers. However, the administrator named Future Perfect at Sunrise thought my editing was prejudiced and blocked me from editing the page without any discussion nor warning with/to me. Also he didn't mention any reasons why my editing was wrong but he just suddenly blocked me from the page. Plus, 2 administrators named jpgordon and Hersfold declined my unblock requests without mentioning any specific reasons about Future Perfect at Sunrise's sudden blocking of my editing. I am not levying attacks at others, which Hertfold claimed about my unblock request, but I want my editing right back and want to know the reason why he blocked me without any reasonable explanation about my editing of the page "Liancourt Rocks". Thank you.}}
- Turnong off as block appears to have expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
block
[edit]I think if they are to be blocked for 3 days for a first offense at a minimum it needs listing on the arbcom sanctions page. I'm also uncomfortable with the blocking admin being a regular contributor to the page. Secretlondon (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)