User talk:Anonymous sensible

August 2012

Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you made a change to an article, South Korea, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jschnur (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

Hi Anonymous sensible, the content you are adding to South Korea does not appear constructive to the article. It appears to be a machine translated version from the jp wiki(?) and has been reverted in good faith again. Noom _talk ^stalk 00:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repeat such edits. Ask assistance with translation and discuss your proposed changes at talk:South Korea first. Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at South Korea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anonymous sensible. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 11:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded again on my talkpage. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

Thank you for stopping the 'edit warring'. Please propose any changes at Talk:South Korea. William Avery (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:South Korea, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive edits in incomprehensible broken English. Your English is far too poor to make any useful contribution here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I had to edit without going through the procedure.However, the procedure was to understand thanks to the person who block me.Also understand that my English is bad.

There are things I must say.

There is a one-sided article, it can not tolerate.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I had to edit without going through the procedure.However, the procedure was to understand thanks to the person who block me.Also understand that my English is bad.
There are things I must say.
There is a one-sided article, it can not tolerate. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I had to edit without going through the procedure.However, the procedure was to understand thanks to the person who block me.Also understand that my English is bad.
There are things I must say.
There is a one-sided article, it can not tolerate. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I had to edit without going through the procedure.However, the procedure was to understand thanks to the person who block me.Also understand that my English is bad.
There are things I must say.
There is a one-sided article, it can not tolerate. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}