User talk:Aek973

Aek973, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Aek973! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging other users

I saw you used a link to the user Koraskadi's talk page multiple times in Wikipedia:Teahouse#How can I act if he ignores this warning?, and I suppose you mean to ping that user to make them aware of the talk thread in the Teahouse. Alas I'm afraid that won't work – as the Help:Notifications page describes it, the user is notified when their user page is linked, not their talk page. If in doubt, you may consider using the {{reply to}} or the {{user link}} template (or any of their redirections, e.g. {{re}} or {{u}}), which will make appropriate link for you. --CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

f it’s not difficult for you, please make these changes — otherwise I don’t know how to do it right. I agree that you would make these corrections. Aek973 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Special:Diff/938470329. --CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Aek973. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Please don't change talk threads headers

Please don't change talk threads headers, as you did in Special:Diff/938441194, without an important reason. This invalidates links like that in the section #Pinging other users above, as the target anchor (the part after the # mark) no longer exists in the destination page. --CiaPan (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020: Basic manners on Wikipedia

You recently said, "The user User:Junggukhas joined these actions. In raticle Balhae controversies He provokes a war of edits to remove the positions of three parties in order to seek information in favor of the ideology of his countries - South Korea. Help take action against this. He also did it in the Balhae article - the face is clearly coordinated work that violates the rules of sock-puppet."

Wikipedia does not tolerate harsh language directed at editors who make their edits in good faith. Wikipedia is not social media (where anything goes), it's a legitimate online encyclopedia. In addition, you are not qualified to make an accusation of sock puppetry, as you lack access to the tools for detection and have yet to report your suspicions of sock puppetry against User:Junggukhas. Please cite reliable sources for your edits in the future, and avoid resorting to attacks in the hope of bolstering your edits' chances of sticking.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a fact indeed. he did so. You can look at the history of edits and see what is there before it and what happened after. You see how to become within 12 years constantly roll back to the Korean version. 12 years !!! why no one decides from the administration to give an equal neutral position in the country is that Russophobia? Korean money? What is the reason that article 12 is in disastrous condition. And Wikipedia does not provide objective neutral information? After all, conflicts are also visible on the discussion page. Well see and well-coordinated work of Korean users who are activated as if on command - why no one wants to notice this and only Russian and Chinese users are banned - are we the lowest race? Why such hatred towards us and the hypocritical manipulation of rules?Aek973 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious to me that you do not belong on Wikipedia, as you are not here to make an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOT.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Aek973! You created a thread called How to delete a page? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and various sundries

I'm carrying over my comment from ANI]. Please do not accuse those who disagree with you of sock puppetry, or claim a conspiracy among editors to promote an off wiki agenda, or otherwise direct comments at your perceptions of editors. Please discuss content and sourcing based on policy. Please understand that there are more experienced users who understand policies and guidelines better than you do. I would recommend taking a deep breath and heeding CaptainEek's advice. Please understand you are violating a core principle of this project, WP:CIVIL. Please understand that if you continue to make incivil remarks ad/or cast aspersions, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please discuss proposed changes based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and seek dispute resolution if needed. Cheers, and happy editing.-- Deep fried okra 21:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the blocks imposed exclusively against Russian and Chinese users who are involved in editing articles related to Balhae? Why is no one Korean user not blocked - although the coherence of their actions is not visible only to those who knowingly do not want to see this?Aek973 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. I do know that you have been warned repeatedly about your conduct. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia, as has been explained to you many times.-- Deep fried okra 02:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know or do not want to understand the situation? The problem is described in detail. You can appear with her in the history of edits of all conflicting pages and their Talk page as well as in the Teahouse. If you do not have the opportunity or desire to understand the essence of the problems and take a neutral stance to make a correct neutral judgment, then your warnings are obviously exceeding your authority. And this question should be addressed to those who know about the situation. Aek973 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aek973, Wikipedia has a problem with chronically angry editors, particularly those who have difficulty getting the details of their complaint across clearly to other editors. Can you show us a diff that illustrates your point? All you seem to have in your arsenal are accusations of complicity, socking and prejudice. We cannot see what you are seeing. If you are interested in finding resolution, please help us to help you. Otherwise, it would be best both for Wikipedia and for you if you went elsewhere.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, collecting all cases will require a lot of time - which this project apparently is not worth. I do not get paid for work here, unlike some clearly interested parties. I don’t have time to spend it on a detailed analysis of actions for 12+ years.

I can only provide some examples - here you can see a deliberate deterioration of the article [[1]] - initially the positions of the countries were presented equally - the map of the state’s borders according to the Russian version was also illustrated and supported by a link to a scientific study. Korean users organized a trolling attack on the appearance of the article when the opinion of Russians is presented as completely irrelevant and not significant. Although, unlike South Korea, Russia has the research material itself - but once again I’m tired of repeating this - if Wikipedia is interested in making all Russians an enemy for itself, it can get it. if people didn’t support earlier talk about blocking Wikipedia, now it is supporting it because distortions have exceeded all reasonable limits.[2]Aek973 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to keep digging a bigger hole for yourself. You have now accused unnamed editors of being WP:PAID editors. Since I'm fairly sure no one active in the areas you seem to be involved in are declared paid editors, you're effectively accusing editors of being undeclared paid editors. Undeclared paid editing is something seen extremely poorly here on the English Wikipedia, or pretty much any Wikipedia, not to mention in violation of the terms of use of the website. If you are going to make such serious allegations, you need to provide evidence. If you are not able to provide evidence you should withdraw your claim of undeclared paid editing as it's effectively an egregious personal attack, something fully justifying an indef block by my book. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pit - you are the enemies claiming to our lands which must be destroyed. There is nothing to talk about with you.Aek973 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. The writing was improved in that edit, but I'm not a subject expert and you must initiate discussion on the article's Talk page. That is how we make Wikipedia better. Just stop with the ridiculous accusations right now. It's pretty obvious to me that you are not a historian; your methods are not how history gets written. What is your agenda?--Quisqualis (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the edit oldid=939030194?

Hi,
could you, please, explain the reason for this edit: Special:Diff/939095838...?

TIA. --CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They added a comma following a period. Is that the edit you meant?--Quisqualis (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've removed a superfluous (IMHO) comma in Special:Diff/939030194 but Aek reverted the change in 939095838. So I'm asking why – what a reason to restore the comma after the period (and before a ref) was. --CiaPan (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are seen as "The Enemy". Everything we do has a (not so) hidden agenda against Russia and China, in favor of Korea.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. But I asked Aek973, because I'm curious what his reason was to do what he did. --CiaPan (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Deep fried okra 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I have posted concerning your edit warring here.-- Deep fried okra 18:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the section title: earring → warring. --CiaPan (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Deep fried okra 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to discussion which was archived too soon.-- Deep fried okra 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]