Hello, Wikibreaking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
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. Thank you.――
Phoenix7777 (
talk)
20:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wikibreaking reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Posted legitimately referenced facts & some people kept deleting & hiding those facts. Then I was blocked. How is this fair?
Decline reason:
Please read WP:EDITWAR to see why you are blocked. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:39, 1 January 2016 (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.
Don't copy a large article edit to the talk page just in case it gets deleted. If it gets deleted and you need to refer to it, the material is still present in the article's edit history. Just link to the diff of your edit (see WP:SDG for instructions if you do not know how to do this) and put this link on the talk page. Imagine the mess if everyone copied all of their edits to the talk page just in case someone deleted it from the article. Meters ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Bulgogi. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters ( talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Many of your recent edits have added a lot of subjective opinions stated as objective facts. Several editors have tried to explain this to you, but there is still a lot of confusion. Do you understand that not everything supported by a source can be added as truth? Some statements are not verifiable, and are open to debate. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to present opinions, even if they are true, as facts. Do you understand? As an example, there are many different kinds of Chinese cuisine, and making statements about when "Chinese cuisine" became real is just one opinion on a complicated historical issue. According to historians, the documented history of Chinese cuisine starts with the neolithic period 4,000 years ago. Saying that Chinese cuisine didn't exist then, or was inferior, are personal opinions which don't belong in Wikipedia.
Just as important, the Charles D Benn book you added doesn't support the claim that bulgogi or anything similar was popular in ancient China! This is what we are talking about when we say original research. Sources must be specific, and they must support the added content.
It looks to me like you're just adding sources so other editors don't remove your content again, not because they are good sources that support your claims. That's not the point of having sources. You cannot add what you know, and then add sources to it which don't say exactly that. You cannot say that because two words have the same definition they must be related, unless a reliable source says exactly that. There are a lot of cultures with names for foods that could be translated as "fire meat", and not all of them come from Korea, right? That's why you need a source making the connection. Making the connection yourself is considered a form of research by Wikipedia.
Please acknowledge that we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia, not push an agenda. If you can't assume good faith, then you will eventually be blocked again. I know it must be frustrating that we aren't answering every one of your comments on talk pages, but you don't seem to be acknowledging what we are saying, so reading your long, sometimes insulting comments makes it very hard to cooperate with you, especially when you ignore what we're saying and restore your own content anyway. Grayfell ( talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 04:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 04:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 05:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
No. You are totally missing the point. I do NOT want you to add sources about how much Chinese cuisine has changed. Understand? I want you to stop adding sources that don't support claims made in the article. Every reference you add must support the preceding sentence. The Benn source said nothing about Korean bulgogi, so adding it after a sentence about that is deceptive. Understand? Benn did not say that bulgogi was popular in Tang China. You cannot add his book to a statement saying that bulgogi was popular in ancient China. Do you understand why this is important? Please answer this.
The other sources you mention just now don't even mention Korea or bulgogi at all, so they are useless. Bulgogi is only one example of how your behavior is a problem. I am not just talking about the bulgogi article, I am talking about your behavior in many articles. You need to start using sources properly. Grayfell ( talk) 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 06:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
1. When made in households, Bulkogi is often (but not necessarily) made stewed in juice, wrinkly, extremely thin. [1]
1. I am showing you that photo.
2. Originally, Bulkogi was cut slightly thicker, at around 5mm [2] and is neither wrinkly nor stewed in juice. [3] Also, as recorded in Donggooksesigi, it was originally grilled on a Korean barbecue grill (Hwaro) still used in restaurants in concept, so the juice doesn't pool. The original Bulkogi was also made skewered on fire. [4] This older style bulkogi is still made, mostly in restaurants but also in some households.
2: I am showing you the recipes & photos.
3. There are many similar styles of marinated meat dishes in Korea, such as Yangnyumkalbi, which is similar to the original style bulkogi. [5] Aside from Yangnyumkalbi, even for the marinated meat types that are called Bulkogi, there are 3 main different styles: Seoul style, Kwangyang style, Unyang style. [6]
3. I am showing you the different styles introduced by the references. (I have no idea which topic is not referenced, so I am just numbering different parts.)
4. In Chosunyorijebub (1939), Bulkogi was described as "thinly sliced meat [that] is marinated with soy sauce, crushed green onion, sesame, black pepper, sugar, then grilled." In medieval sushingi it says that "soy sauce and garlic are used". This is generally the same as modern Bulkogi. [7] There is a claim that Yakiniku added sugar in the recipe, but Korean already sometimes added sugar into Bulkogi as visible from 1939.
4. The historical recipes were introduced. Also, from the previous reference, a claim trying to differentiate Yakiniku & Bulkogi was introduced. I was referring to that.
5. The term Bulkogi (Bul means fire; Kogi means meat) was originally a Pyungyang dialect. [8] Eventually, this Pyungyang dialect spread to all over Korea. [9]
5. Showing you a linguist & an old newspaper.
6. Korean marinated meat has been adopted in China and Japan. During the modern era, Korean Bulkogi has become a popular meat dish in Japan called yakiniku. [10] Even in ancient China before China had developed cooking like today [11], [12] Korean Maekjok (ancient Bulkogi) was imported & was very popular in China as much as Yehoi. [13]
6. China's food not being as developed back then is not really an important issue here. It was just mentioned as a side topic why they ate Korean food then stopped eating it. Anyway, I can add more references if you want more. Also, China imported Korean Bulkogi anyway (why did you delete this part as well while talking about "prove China's food was not always fully developed!"
7. Japan's most famous Yakiniku region is Tsuruhashi (Korean Town in Osaka). In this region, there is a restaurant Tsuruichi that first started Yakiniku in Japan. [14] According to Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan by Michael Weiner, "Yakiniku is a Japanese word simply meaning 'cooked meat' and used to denote a grilled meat cuisine found in Korean restaurants in Japan. The mainland Korean equivalent is bulgogi but the two cuisines are not entirely the same. Yakuniku is a variant of cooked meat that has been modified by Zainichi Koreans to appeal to Japanese tastes." [15]
7. That's just a typical research & interview.
If you are more specific which specific sentence you refer to as unreferenced, I don't mind finding a different reference saying the exact same thing. Wikibreaking ( talk) 05:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evolution of folded eyelids is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seagull123 Φ 21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adding to the Taekkyeon page. It is hard to read in English. Good research. Is it possible to edit it down a little? Carverrock ( talk) 16:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 19:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, as mentioned on the Admin's page, once an article has been deleted as the result of a Deletion Discussion, such as was had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids, you can't just re-create it, even with a different name. When that happens, the article qualifies for Immediate Deletion. Continually re-creating that is also likely to get you blocked, which nobody wants. I suggest, if you want to completely re-write it, you should do so in Draft space, where you can work on it without it being deleted. You can use the Article Wizard to do that, and it will put it in the right spot.
Also, as mentioned in the deletion discussion, the term "Notability" here means something very specific. It doesn't relate to how important something is, or how many people may be wondering about it, but means that something has been discussed specifically in many reliable sources. See WP:N for all the specifics. Sorry it is going like this, but I leave you these pieces of advice so you don't get blocked, and can still take a crack at writing articles. Crow Caw 21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I redirected Korean eyes to epicanthic fold. It may contain some content mentioned in the above section. It isn't good to have your only sources be books from the 1800's on such a topic, which most likely contain some degree of prejudiced material. MB298 ( talk) 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Korean eyes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Eye snore 03:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 03:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created,
Korean eyes, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's
guidelines for new pages, so it will be
removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the
sandbox for any tests, and consider using the
Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Your first article. You may also want to read our
introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
MB298 (
talk)
03:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 03:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wikibreaking,
You have now opened three simultaneous deletion reviews on essentially the same topic within days of each other:
It is not useful to do this. The original DRV was quite sufficient to discuss all of these possible variations on the topic. You have literally opened a new DRV, on the same topic, every day for the last three days. This is becoming impossible to follow and really quite disruptive - especially when you paste the entire text of the article into a DRV.
PLEASE consider withdrawing (and closing) your two most recent DRVs. The situation is confusing enough without making it worse like this.
Cheers,
Thparkth ( talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Korean raw fish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Stifle (
talk)
09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This is to notify you that your recent contributions give rise to a concern that you may not be compliant with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would strongly suggest you read WP:CALM, WP:TEA, and WP:DTS, and pay heed to them. Continuing to engage in combative behaviour runs the risk that you will be blocked from editing. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Mkdw
talk
19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was wrongfully blocked when I was just exerting my rights.
Decline reason:
You don't have any rights here. If you want to write odd tangents relating to Epicanthic fold, I suggest you create your own blog elsewhere for that sort of thing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:56, 21 January 2016 (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.
Thanks for uploading File:Gimssam sample provided by a Korean encyclopedia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikibreaking,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Korean raw fish for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rollingcontributor ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This user engaged in chronic block evasion from January to April, 2019. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24920 was submitted on Apr 25, 2019 19:55:56. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 19:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24938 was submitted on Apr 26, 2019 20:06:11. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24943 was submitted on Apr 26, 2019 22:53:41. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 22:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #27326 was submitted on Oct 27, 2019 17:49:22. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #27503 was submitted on Nov 06, 2019 20:54:08. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I withdrew legal threat, and I was told to request for unblock 6 months after. It's been more than 6 months. I was told to follow WP:OFFER and to appeal for unblock again in six months. It has been 6 months, so I am following up on my ban. Could you unblock my account please? I have 2 accounts. My first account was Wikibreaking which was blocked first. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Wikibreaking Then, a couple years later, I created my second account Bearberserk which was blocked because my first account wasn't unblocked before I created my second account. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Bearberserk I am told that I should use only 1 account. If so, I would like to use my second account Bearberserk because I like that name better. Could you unblock my second account Bearberserk? As for my first account, you can remove it or whatever. Or you can unblock my first account Wikibreaking first then I will submit another appeal for my second account Bearberserk which I plan on using because I like that name better. I wasn't planning on editing any article right away, but since I am told that I should plan to edit something if I want my account unblocked, I will edit the following 2 articles. /info/en/?search=Korean_sword https://i.imgur.com/E1zwCtQ.jpg Hwando is the Korean version of Japanese Katana; this sword was the most common sword in Korea. This sword was not imported from Japan but from Guguryeo Dynasty's Hwandudaedo. According to 1451's Chosun Royal Journal's February 25th entry, there were 2 different types of Hwando: one with longer handle (2 Bbyeom/뼘) and one with shorter (1 Bbyeom/뼘 and 3 finger widths) handle. The one with shorter handle was used on horse while the one with longer handle was used off horse. /info/en/?search=Breaking_(martial_arts) http://www.kwunion.com/interesting/mas-oyama-america-part-3/ In 1940 the “Japanese American Courier” reported that “Marking its 34th anniversary the Tacoma (judo) dojo will hold its annual tournament Sunday afternoon at the Buddhist Church auditorium . . . Over 40 black belts are listed for action. An additional feature on the programme will be Masato Tamura’s ‘rock breaking’ demonstration via the ancient Japanese art of “kiai jutsu”. He will also oppose a quintet of picked black belts”. Tamura was a well known judoka who had got his third dan during Jigoro Kano’s visit to America in 1938. In none of these accounts, incidentally, is there any mention of karate. Wikibreaking ( talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline as this will be discussed by the community at the administrators' noticeboard and the outcome decided by consensus there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 13 November 2019 (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.
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Did you read what I wrote? I was told I could be unblocked if I put in the request after 6 months. Can you check like notes on my account or something?
I withdrew legal threat, and I was told to request for unblock 6 months after. I was told to follow WP:OFFER and to appeal for unblock again in six months. It's been more than 6 months, so I am following up on my ban. Could you unblock my account please?
Decline reason:
The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Unblock appeal by Wikibreaking did not result in a consensus to unblock. If you make a future unblock request it will have to clearly explain that you understand the reasons for your block, and what you will do differently going forward. – bradv 🍁 05:56, 22 November 2019 (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.
Wikibreaking ( talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My first account was blocked because I made legal threat. I withdrew my legal threat. My second account was blocked because I was using it while my first account was still blocked. I admitted that that my first account was blocked, and I stopped using my second account since it was blocked. I stopped using my second account after admitting that my first account was blocked. Also, it has been years since my first account was blocked. None of these will happen again. Wikibreaking ( talk) 17:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As the community declined this unblock request 3 days ago, I do not see how this has changed in that amount of time. As Yamla has stated, I would wait six months before a new request is filed, which I will also reiterate does NOT guarantee an unblock. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:00, 25 November 2019 (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.
Your previous block was discussed by the community and the opposition was unanimous. It is abusive to attempt yet another unblock request so quickly after the community rejected your last. I very strongly suggest removing the above request and trying your appeal again no sooner than six months after the community rejected your last request. -- Yamla ( talk) 17:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
When my unblock request was denied, I was told the following. "If you make a future unblock request it will have to clearly explain that you understand the reasons for your block, and what you will do differently going forward." And that's what I did. My first account was blocked because I made legal threat. I withdrew my legal threat. My second account was blocked because I was using it while my first account was still blocked. I admitted that that my first account was blocked, and I stopped using my second account since it was blocked. I stopped using my second account after admitting that my first account was blocked. Also, it has been years since my first account was blocked. None of these will happen again. It's not that anything changed within a couple of days. It's just that you didn't realize the change within the couple of days. Wikibreaking ( talk) 00:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hi Wikibreaking. I'm so sorry, however, I am required to decline your unblock request since it is essentially identical to one that was already validly adjudicated and correctly declined just yesterday. As per the advice given to you by others, you may want to pursue WP:STANDARD. In the meantime, you are able to continue your participation on Wikipedia as a non-editing reader of Wikipedia content. Chetsford ( talk) 01:58, 27 November 2019 (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.
As this user is refusing to listen, I have revoked talk page access. To the reviewing administrator, if you believe the above unblock request is sufficient to bring to the community, please do so and reinstate talk page access. If not, Wikibreaking, please consider this the end of the line. The community is done with you. WP:UTRS will be available to you no sooner than six months from today (no sooner than 2020-05-26), where you'll need to be willing to make a substantially more compelling case to the community, if you wish to be unblocked. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Wikibreaking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
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. Thank you.――
Phoenix7777 (
talk)
20:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wikibreaking reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Posted legitimately referenced facts & some people kept deleting & hiding those facts. Then I was blocked. How is this fair?
Decline reason:
Please read WP:EDITWAR to see why you are blocked. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:39, 1 January 2016 (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.
Don't copy a large article edit to the talk page just in case it gets deleted. If it gets deleted and you need to refer to it, the material is still present in the article's edit history. Just link to the diff of your edit (see WP:SDG for instructions if you do not know how to do this) and put this link on the talk page. Imagine the mess if everyone copied all of their edits to the talk page just in case someone deleted it from the article. Meters ( talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Bulgogi. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters ( talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Many of your recent edits have added a lot of subjective opinions stated as objective facts. Several editors have tried to explain this to you, but there is still a lot of confusion. Do you understand that not everything supported by a source can be added as truth? Some statements are not verifiable, and are open to debate. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to present opinions, even if they are true, as facts. Do you understand? As an example, there are many different kinds of Chinese cuisine, and making statements about when "Chinese cuisine" became real is just one opinion on a complicated historical issue. According to historians, the documented history of Chinese cuisine starts with the neolithic period 4,000 years ago. Saying that Chinese cuisine didn't exist then, or was inferior, are personal opinions which don't belong in Wikipedia.
Just as important, the Charles D Benn book you added doesn't support the claim that bulgogi or anything similar was popular in ancient China! This is what we are talking about when we say original research. Sources must be specific, and they must support the added content.
It looks to me like you're just adding sources so other editors don't remove your content again, not because they are good sources that support your claims. That's not the point of having sources. You cannot add what you know, and then add sources to it which don't say exactly that. You cannot say that because two words have the same definition they must be related, unless a reliable source says exactly that. There are a lot of cultures with names for foods that could be translated as "fire meat", and not all of them come from Korea, right? That's why you need a source making the connection. Making the connection yourself is considered a form of research by Wikipedia.
Please acknowledge that we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia, not push an agenda. If you can't assume good faith, then you will eventually be blocked again. I know it must be frustrating that we aren't answering every one of your comments on talk pages, but you don't seem to be acknowledging what we are saying, so reading your long, sometimes insulting comments makes it very hard to cooperate with you, especially when you ignore what we're saying and restore your own content anyway. Grayfell ( talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 04:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 04:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 05:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
No. You are totally missing the point. I do NOT want you to add sources about how much Chinese cuisine has changed. Understand? I want you to stop adding sources that don't support claims made in the article. Every reference you add must support the preceding sentence. The Benn source said nothing about Korean bulgogi, so adding it after a sentence about that is deceptive. Understand? Benn did not say that bulgogi was popular in Tang China. You cannot add his book to a statement saying that bulgogi was popular in ancient China. Do you understand why this is important? Please answer this.
The other sources you mention just now don't even mention Korea or bulgogi at all, so they are useless. Bulgogi is only one example of how your behavior is a problem. I am not just talking about the bulgogi article, I am talking about your behavior in many articles. You need to start using sources properly. Grayfell ( talk) 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 06:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
1. When made in households, Bulkogi is often (but not necessarily) made stewed in juice, wrinkly, extremely thin. [1]
1. I am showing you that photo.
2. Originally, Bulkogi was cut slightly thicker, at around 5mm [2] and is neither wrinkly nor stewed in juice. [3] Also, as recorded in Donggooksesigi, it was originally grilled on a Korean barbecue grill (Hwaro) still used in restaurants in concept, so the juice doesn't pool. The original Bulkogi was also made skewered on fire. [4] This older style bulkogi is still made, mostly in restaurants but also in some households.
2: I am showing you the recipes & photos.
3. There are many similar styles of marinated meat dishes in Korea, such as Yangnyumkalbi, which is similar to the original style bulkogi. [5] Aside from Yangnyumkalbi, even for the marinated meat types that are called Bulkogi, there are 3 main different styles: Seoul style, Kwangyang style, Unyang style. [6]
3. I am showing you the different styles introduced by the references. (I have no idea which topic is not referenced, so I am just numbering different parts.)
4. In Chosunyorijebub (1939), Bulkogi was described as "thinly sliced meat [that] is marinated with soy sauce, crushed green onion, sesame, black pepper, sugar, then grilled." In medieval sushingi it says that "soy sauce and garlic are used". This is generally the same as modern Bulkogi. [7] There is a claim that Yakiniku added sugar in the recipe, but Korean already sometimes added sugar into Bulkogi as visible from 1939.
4. The historical recipes were introduced. Also, from the previous reference, a claim trying to differentiate Yakiniku & Bulkogi was introduced. I was referring to that.
5. The term Bulkogi (Bul means fire; Kogi means meat) was originally a Pyungyang dialect. [8] Eventually, this Pyungyang dialect spread to all over Korea. [9]
5. Showing you a linguist & an old newspaper.
6. Korean marinated meat has been adopted in China and Japan. During the modern era, Korean Bulkogi has become a popular meat dish in Japan called yakiniku. [10] Even in ancient China before China had developed cooking like today [11], [12] Korean Maekjok (ancient Bulkogi) was imported & was very popular in China as much as Yehoi. [13]
6. China's food not being as developed back then is not really an important issue here. It was just mentioned as a side topic why they ate Korean food then stopped eating it. Anyway, I can add more references if you want more. Also, China imported Korean Bulkogi anyway (why did you delete this part as well while talking about "prove China's food was not always fully developed!"
7. Japan's most famous Yakiniku region is Tsuruhashi (Korean Town in Osaka). In this region, there is a restaurant Tsuruichi that first started Yakiniku in Japan. [14] According to Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan by Michael Weiner, "Yakiniku is a Japanese word simply meaning 'cooked meat' and used to denote a grilled meat cuisine found in Korean restaurants in Japan. The mainland Korean equivalent is bulgogi but the two cuisines are not entirely the same. Yakuniku is a variant of cooked meat that has been modified by Zainichi Koreans to appeal to Japanese tastes." [15]
7. That's just a typical research & interview.
If you are more specific which specific sentence you refer to as unreferenced, I don't mind finding a different reference saying the exact same thing. Wikibreaking ( talk) 05:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evolution of folded eyelids is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seagull123 Φ 21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adding to the Taekkyeon page. It is hard to read in English. Good research. Is it possible to edit it down a little? Carverrock ( talk) 16:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 19:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, as mentioned on the Admin's page, once an article has been deleted as the result of a Deletion Discussion, such as was had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids, you can't just re-create it, even with a different name. When that happens, the article qualifies for Immediate Deletion. Continually re-creating that is also likely to get you blocked, which nobody wants. I suggest, if you want to completely re-write it, you should do so in Draft space, where you can work on it without it being deleted. You can use the Article Wizard to do that, and it will put it in the right spot.
Also, as mentioned in the deletion discussion, the term "Notability" here means something very specific. It doesn't relate to how important something is, or how many people may be wondering about it, but means that something has been discussed specifically in many reliable sources. See WP:N for all the specifics. Sorry it is going like this, but I leave you these pieces of advice so you don't get blocked, and can still take a crack at writing articles. Crow Caw 21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I redirected Korean eyes to epicanthic fold. It may contain some content mentioned in the above section. It isn't good to have your only sources be books from the 1800's on such a topic, which most likely contain some degree of prejudiced material. MB298 ( talk) 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Korean eyes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Eye snore 03:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 03:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created,
Korean eyes, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's
guidelines for new pages, so it will be
removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the
sandbox for any tests, and consider using the
Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Your first article. You may also want to read our
introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
MB298 (
talk)
03:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( talk) 03:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wikibreaking,
You have now opened three simultaneous deletion reviews on essentially the same topic within days of each other:
It is not useful to do this. The original DRV was quite sufficient to discuss all of these possible variations on the topic. You have literally opened a new DRV, on the same topic, every day for the last three days. This is becoming impossible to follow and really quite disruptive - especially when you paste the entire text of the article into a DRV.
PLEASE consider withdrawing (and closing) your two most recent DRVs. The situation is confusing enough without making it worse like this.
Cheers,
Thparkth ( talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Korean raw fish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Stifle (
talk)
09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This is to notify you that your recent contributions give rise to a concern that you may not be compliant with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would strongly suggest you read WP:CALM, WP:TEA, and WP:DTS, and pay heed to them. Continuing to engage in combative behaviour runs the risk that you will be blocked from editing. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Mkdw
talk
19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was wrongfully blocked when I was just exerting my rights.
Decline reason:
You don't have any rights here. If you want to write odd tangents relating to Epicanthic fold, I suggest you create your own blog elsewhere for that sort of thing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:56, 21 January 2016 (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.
Thanks for uploading File:Gimssam sample provided by a Korean encyclopedia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikibreaking,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Korean raw fish for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rollingcontributor ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This user engaged in chronic block evasion from January to April, 2019. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24920 was submitted on Apr 25, 2019 19:55:56. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 19:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24938 was submitted on Apr 26, 2019 20:06:11. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24943 was submitted on Apr 26, 2019 22:53:41. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 22:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #27326 was submitted on Oct 27, 2019 17:49:22. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #27503 was submitted on Nov 06, 2019 20:54:08. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I withdrew legal threat, and I was told to request for unblock 6 months after. It's been more than 6 months. I was told to follow WP:OFFER and to appeal for unblock again in six months. It has been 6 months, so I am following up on my ban. Could you unblock my account please? I have 2 accounts. My first account was Wikibreaking which was blocked first. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Wikibreaking Then, a couple years later, I created my second account Bearberserk which was blocked because my first account wasn't unblocked before I created my second account. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Bearberserk I am told that I should use only 1 account. If so, I would like to use my second account Bearberserk because I like that name better. Could you unblock my second account Bearberserk? As for my first account, you can remove it or whatever. Or you can unblock my first account Wikibreaking first then I will submit another appeal for my second account Bearberserk which I plan on using because I like that name better. I wasn't planning on editing any article right away, but since I am told that I should plan to edit something if I want my account unblocked, I will edit the following 2 articles. /info/en/?search=Korean_sword https://i.imgur.com/E1zwCtQ.jpg Hwando is the Korean version of Japanese Katana; this sword was the most common sword in Korea. This sword was not imported from Japan but from Guguryeo Dynasty's Hwandudaedo. According to 1451's Chosun Royal Journal's February 25th entry, there were 2 different types of Hwando: one with longer handle (2 Bbyeom/뼘) and one with shorter (1 Bbyeom/뼘 and 3 finger widths) handle. The one with shorter handle was used on horse while the one with longer handle was used off horse. /info/en/?search=Breaking_(martial_arts) http://www.kwunion.com/interesting/mas-oyama-america-part-3/ In 1940 the “Japanese American Courier” reported that “Marking its 34th anniversary the Tacoma (judo) dojo will hold its annual tournament Sunday afternoon at the Buddhist Church auditorium . . . Over 40 black belts are listed for action. An additional feature on the programme will be Masato Tamura’s ‘rock breaking’ demonstration via the ancient Japanese art of “kiai jutsu”. He will also oppose a quintet of picked black belts”. Tamura was a well known judoka who had got his third dan during Jigoro Kano’s visit to America in 1938. In none of these accounts, incidentally, is there any mention of karate. Wikibreaking ( talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline as this will be discussed by the community at the administrators' noticeboard and the outcome decided by consensus there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 13 November 2019 (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.
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Did you read what I wrote? I was told I could be unblocked if I put in the request after 6 months. Can you check like notes on my account or something?
I withdrew legal threat, and I was told to request for unblock 6 months after. I was told to follow WP:OFFER and to appeal for unblock again in six months. It's been more than 6 months, so I am following up on my ban. Could you unblock my account please?
Decline reason:
The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Unblock appeal by Wikibreaking did not result in a consensus to unblock. If you make a future unblock request it will have to clearly explain that you understand the reasons for your block, and what you will do differently going forward. – bradv 🍁 05:56, 22 November 2019 (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.
Wikibreaking ( talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My first account was blocked because I made legal threat. I withdrew my legal threat. My second account was blocked because I was using it while my first account was still blocked. I admitted that that my first account was blocked, and I stopped using my second account since it was blocked. I stopped using my second account after admitting that my first account was blocked. Also, it has been years since my first account was blocked. None of these will happen again. Wikibreaking ( talk) 17:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As the community declined this unblock request 3 days ago, I do not see how this has changed in that amount of time. As Yamla has stated, I would wait six months before a new request is filed, which I will also reiterate does NOT guarantee an unblock. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:00, 25 November 2019 (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.
Your previous block was discussed by the community and the opposition was unanimous. It is abusive to attempt yet another unblock request so quickly after the community rejected your last. I very strongly suggest removing the above request and trying your appeal again no sooner than six months after the community rejected your last request. -- Yamla ( talk) 17:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikibreaking ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
When my unblock request was denied, I was told the following. "If you make a future unblock request it will have to clearly explain that you understand the reasons for your block, and what you will do differently going forward." And that's what I did. My first account was blocked because I made legal threat. I withdrew my legal threat. My second account was blocked because I was using it while my first account was still blocked. I admitted that that my first account was blocked, and I stopped using my second account since it was blocked. I stopped using my second account after admitting that my first account was blocked. Also, it has been years since my first account was blocked. None of these will happen again. It's not that anything changed within a couple of days. It's just that you didn't realize the change within the couple of days. Wikibreaking ( talk) 00:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hi Wikibreaking. I'm so sorry, however, I am required to decline your unblock request since it is essentially identical to one that was already validly adjudicated and correctly declined just yesterday. As per the advice given to you by others, you may want to pursue WP:STANDARD. In the meantime, you are able to continue your participation on Wikipedia as a non-editing reader of Wikipedia content. Chetsford ( talk) 01:58, 27 November 2019 (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.
As this user is refusing to listen, I have revoked talk page access. To the reviewing administrator, if you believe the above unblock request is sufficient to bring to the community, please do so and reinstate talk page access. If not, Wikibreaking, please consider this the end of the line. The community is done with you. WP:UTRS will be available to you no sooner than six months from today (no sooner than 2020-05-26), where you'll need to be willing to make a substantially more compelling case to the community, if you wish to be unblocked. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)