User talk:Hkwon/Archive 2

Meiji and An[edit]

Page 664, right at the top, "An was not anti-Japanese. The man he most admired was undoubtedly Emperor Meiji..." You should have asked in talk about the reference instead of deleting it like you did. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the sentence during my editing and restored the citation in my final edit version of the article An Jung-Geun. That was before you left me this message. You should have checked the article more carefully before you leave a complaint on my user talk page. Hkwon (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

... for your comment on Clarita's talk page about the "Korean meat dog." I have taken the liberty of copying some of it and refering to it on the discussion page that goes with the article Nureongi. If you go there you will see how I edited your words. I hope that is ok with you; I didn't identify you but in context a reader can know I was atributing these things to you so you might want ot check it out and let me know if you aren't as sure anymore about anything. Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...again for your help with Nureongi.

It is no problem and I hope to provide further help if I can. Hkwon (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nureongi[edit]

Hi ! I saw that you're a member of the Korean food workgroup, so I was wondering whether you've got the time to help clarify some issues concerning this type of dog. It's bred for food, but it's unclear from the English sources available whether it's a breed or a broad term to describe dogs bred for food. I presume that there are Korean sources available which deal with the subject matter in more depth. Please place a short note on my talk page if you're unable to do so, so that I can look for someone else. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided few information that I could verify for the article. I would be glad if I were of some help. Hkwon (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Historiographer[edit]

Hey, IP. You don't even know me. You shouldn't talk down others editing. Don't recognize negative images to this user.--Historiographer (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IP. (Whatever it means) I don't know you indeed and don't even want to know who you are, unless it has someting to do with discussions of my interests. I don't understand what you mean by "others editing" and "this user", and "talking down" and "recognizing negative images" associated with them (whomever they are). Could you specifically explain them? Hkwon (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in but I feel like I should clarify what Historiographer meant since there's an obvious misunderstanding between you two (I've seen your reply Historiographer's talk page). I think Historiographer feels insulted by 118.129.140.129's comments for whatever reason and has mistakenly replied under your edit. I'm pretty sure English is his third or fourth language. Anyways, just wanted to clear that up since Historiographer is really not a bad guy. Cheers. Akkies (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Akkies: Hi. Thank you for your message. I understand that kind of things can happen. But I looked at the talk page of Historiographer after reading your comments, and the user left me an even more challenging message to me (although the English expression was a little difficult to decipher, its intention looked clear.) I am not generous enough to endure multiple challenging/insulting comments to me, especially when they stem from the commentor's mistake like you explained. let's see what will happen. Hkwon (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park Geun-hye[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules about duplicate categorization; if an article is already in Category:South Korean women in politics then there's no need for it to be in the more general Category:Women in politics at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page comments[edit]

May I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and in particular, read the following line:

Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

The final sentence seems quite relevant. thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the article "Park Geun-hye". Comment on the talk page for the article where everyone interested can see, not on my user talk page. I will create a new section on "Park Geun-hye" talk page, copy your comments above, and resume discussion with you there, not here. Hkwon (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationalism[edit]

Hi, recently User:Sennen goroshi distort the truth in some articles related to Korea. User:Historiographer is well known as non-discuss user, he may be don't participate in that case again, and so I think you need paticipate in talk of Sennen goroshi's distortion articles. It is Korea, Korean Nationalism, and Internet of Sout Korea.118.129.140.129 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the info. I've been bothered by Sennen goroshi's disruptive editing before. I'll take a look at the pages you mentioned. Hkwon (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giftiger_wunsch's message concerning Talk:Park Geun-hye[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Park Geun-hye. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such an authentic-looking warning; I am impressed. But why don't you make those warnings when you become a real administrator? Hkwon (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment I left on my own talk page, where you double-posted this. You do not need to be an administrator to use a warning template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Giftiger_wunsch: When did I say it was wrong for you to use a warning template? Read my comments again, more carefully this time.Hkwon (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"why don't you make those warnings when you become a real administrator?" suggests to me that you are misunderstanding policy, thinking that I need administrator privileges to warn you. That is not the case. I think we can end the discussion here, but I recommend that you read and understand policy before attempting to enforce it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Regarding your previous comment which you just deleted: I am not being condescending, I am trying to help you understand policy. If you do not learn to follow policy, it is likely that this won't be the only block you end up with. I apologised for stating that you were already in violation of 3RR because I misread the dates; however the warning template I left was still perfectly valid, you were still engaged in an edit war whether the 3RR had been broken yet or not, and you later did break 3RR, which is what resulted in your recent block. I've tried to be helpful but if you're going to refuse to listen and accuse me of being condescending (after you specifically asked for help on wikiquette reports and I replied to help you) then there's no more I can do for you. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Giftiger_wunsch: So you needed to dig up my comments I deleted because I thought they might be inappropriate, and lecture me on those? What a tenacious personal challenge. "This won't be the only block you end up with." So scary...Why don't you make that kind of statement when you have real authority to block me? I have made a mistake this time by breaking the 3RR rule, but won't make another one again. And I don't think it is proper for Wikipedia users to make a faction against another user, contacting each other to game the system and talk on others. Is this a new Axis relationship or what? Hkwon (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messages concerning the article Kimchi[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

seriously, you have just come off a block - edit warring within a couple of hours of getting off a block is only going to result in a longer block - I suggest you step back from the article for a few days, it is better to have the article in a state you don't agree with, than to lose the ability to edit all articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in here with agreement on what's been said already. The people giving you these warnings, myself included, are not administrators. It does not matter. You are clearly engaged in edit warring [1][2][3]. I also quote from WP:3RR; "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You are not entitled to continue an edit war and avoid being blocked by 'only' reverting three times per 24 hour period. You should also read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If you continue this or any other edit war, you will be reported for it and will very likely face a more extended block. I would not be surprised if the block were considerably longer than the first, as you have just come off a block made for the very same reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It warms my heart to see you two guys so worried about me. "Lose ability to edit all articles", "face a more extended block"....I am really scared. But seriously, why don't you mind your own business and buzz off? Especially Sennen goroshi - you attempted to report me again and left me friendly warning after it did not work? What a typical backstabbing behavior. I will heed your warning and be careful not to walk into your trap again. Hkwon (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Kjoon's messages[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Kimchi. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Please don't swear. --Kjoonlee 04:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Kjoonlee: I have never attacked other user personally unless he or she attacked me personally first. And I have never sweared except for a response as someone else's profanity to me. Therefore, I have no intention of rephrasing any of my comments. If you don't like them, there is nothing much I can do. Hkwon (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact something you can do. Don't attack people. Don't think people attack you. Don't swear. Don't think people swear at you. Simple. --Kjoonlee 13:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Kjoon: Do I look like a 5-year-old boy? I know it when people personally attack me and I know it when people swear at me. (Like when some person tells me "야 지나가던 똥개가 웃겠다".) Try not to use commending tones on me as you are not my boss, and worry about your own business instead of mine if you can. Simple. Hkwon (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume everyone is acting according to good faith. WP:AGF I don't mean to sound commending or condescending or whatever, and I comment since editing and communicating is everybody's business at Wikipedia. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for WP:Stalk[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me to see someone who kept leaving profanity and rude messages in Korean to me has guts to report me for WP:Stalk (which failed anyway). If you don't want to be reported, try not to violate Wikipedia rules. By the way, do you feel so proud as a Korean to collaborating with a Japanese editor who has kept making anti-Korean edits for years? Talking about chinilpa...Hkwon (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the content disputes you're currently involved in, this is a clear violation of WP:HOUND. I would suggest withdrawing it and making it clear you do not intend of hounding his contributions going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on revert counting[edit]

Just a note on counting reverts, reverts are based on series of edits in between other's edits. So if someone makes 3 edits in a row, it isn't 3 reverts, it is 1 revert. We only start counting again when someone else gets in there so for example:

A edits the article
B makes some changes
B makes another change
B reverts some stuff
A reverts
A reverts another section
B reverts

A only reverts 1 time and B only reverts 2 times. Even though B made a series of 3 edits, because they were together, they're a single revert.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To:Crossmr: Thank you for your kind explanation on counting reverts. I did not know about this principle, and think it might be helpful to include this information in the 3RR rule guide. I will try and follow this rule next time I have to report someone (hopefully I don't have to). Hkwon (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might be useful to have that information in the 3RR guide, which is why it is in the 3RR guide. Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert I hope this makes things a little easier to understand. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Sennen goroshi Wow. A friendly advice to me from a wannabe-admistrator who is supposed to be "no longer interested in this bulls**t" and enjoying his/her social life. Did you want so much to butt in my conversation with another editor? I don't understand your obsession with me. Do you love me or something? Well, if you are a woman who fits my standards...Oh, and I thought you were busy wiping your minion's butt in 3RR noticeboard. Or are you out of tissue?

I'm sorry, you seem upset. However, there is no need for immature personal attacks - it's OK, I won't report you this time. In the future be a little more civil please, I was only trying to help you find the content that you were unable to locate. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To talk: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet. Hkwon (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

This is a peer-reviewed article from a respected scholor at an esteemed university. You may recognize it as the same one that I used to start the article about the dog, but you could use it for the information about the Bardot situation and other issues. Good luck. http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/265_podberscek.pdf

Thanks! I appreciate it and try to incorporate it to the section as soon as I read the article. Hkwon (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messages from User:Melonbarmonster2:[edit]

야 나라 망신 그만 좀 해라. 넌 양심 도없냐?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation of this appears to be a personal attack. User Melonbarmonster2, See wikipedia:personal attack. Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Chrisrus: Thank you for your comment. For your information and for others, let me show you what kind of other Korean messages User:Melonbarmonster2 left for me, mainly in the page Talk:Kimchi:

한심하네요. 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
한심이 아니라 무식인가? 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
장난하냐? 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다. 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋ 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
저질 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that "ㅋㅋ" is an echoic word for sneering laugh, and all these messages except for the first one were talking down/in impolite tones in Korean language that is never intended for fellow Wikipedia users. Hkwon (talk)

Fermentation[edit]

Hkwon, as agreed on the Talk:Kinchi page, you should write a part, which I will edit and proofread. Off-line is the easiest to avoid reverts in the meantime. You can send it to me at ralf.hartemink[at]wur[dot]nl.Knorrepoes (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Knorrepoes: I finished the section to the best of my knowledge, but user:sennen goroshi reported to get a 1-week block for some words I told him/her. I included my draft in the next section. If you have a chance to to read it, please revise it and upload it to the article kimchi unless you have a major opposition, as I can't do anything about it. I just hope you will have a chance to red this message of mine. Hkwon (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1-week block decision by user:SarekOfVulcan[edit]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for personal attacks, including this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any admin feels the block length was excessive, feel free to reduce without consulting me first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the 1-week block decision by user:SarekOfVulcan[edit]

{{unblock|:1) I am involved in a debate in the article kimchi concerning whether the food is fermented or not. After I requested for RfC at 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC), uninvolved users user:Knorrepoes and user:Martin Hogbin participated in the discussion on talk:kimchi. These users, who I belive are unquestionably neutral, asked me to write a section for kimchi fermentation basing on reliable sources to back up my claim, on the page talk:kimchi.

user:Knorrepoes 3 times at 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) and 16:02 and 7 July 2010 (UTC), on talk:kimchi and at 17:59 ,7 July 2010 (UTC) on my user talk page.[reply]
user:Martin Hogbin 4 times at 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC), 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC), 17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 14:21, and 6 July 2010 (UTC) on talk:kimchi. .[reply]

I gladly accepted they offer, and they promised to proofread and revise my writings as they are knowledgable on the field of Food & Nutrition. (Please look at the pages talk:kimchi and my talk page.) To meet their expectations, I worked hard to finish the draft for these two editors, but I can't send my writings to them now because I am blocked from editing for a week. Now I cannot keep my promise that I would send my writings to them to their user pages, unless they have a chance to check my talk page somehow.

For your information, this is the section I wrote after studying the sources I have gathered, which user:Knorrepoes and user:Martin Hogbin are waiting for. It might be not a very good writing, but I am sure they will be able to revise it to a better one, which these two editors must be waiting:

The vegetables are sliced, highly seasoned with ingredients such as red pepper, onion, and garlic, and fermented in brine traditionally in large earthenware jars. Dried and salted shrimp, anchovy paste, and oysters are sometimes used as additional seasonings. <refname= “Encyclopædia Britannica
article on “kimchi”> Encyclopædia Britannica article on “kimchi” </ref>The fermentation process is initiated by various microorganisms originally present in the raw materials, but is gradually dominated by lactic acid bacteria. Numerous physicochemical and biological factors influence the fermentation, growth,
and sequential appearance of principal microorganisms involved in the fermentation. ^[1] The early and intermediate phases of fermentation are considered crucial to the taste of kimchi. When optimally ripened, acidity increases with sourness and a unique flavor with refreshing and coolness results from ethanol and other products. ^[2]

During fermentation, which takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions, the kimchi jars are stored totally or partially underground in cellars or sheds built expressly for this purpose. <refname= “Encyclopædia Britannica article on “kimchi”/> Recently, however, kimchi refrigerators have become very popular in South Korea. This household electronic device maintains the temperature for the proper fermentation of kimchi, saving the trouble of burying kimchi jars underground. ^[3]

2) I just found today that I was blocked from editing for one week. The message said it was because of personal attacks, including this [4], which the blocking administrator said "a last straw on the back of camel". I hope I had got some kind of warning from this administrator. user:Sennen goroshi, who reported me, has kept mocking me and throwing profanity at me such as s**t, bulls**t and Jesus f**king christ. (Please see talk:kimchi). I didn't want to solve matters by reporting, but by disucssions. And there are neutral editors who I even don't know oppose his/her action, but oppose his/her behavior. [[5]]

I have never confronted him first. I could have not figure out how to deal with this, so I had used some expressions I thought humorous and at least not offensive, without any profanity, hatred words, or racial slur. I don't know how my comments violated Wikipedia policy, but I certainly would be more careful when I talk to fellow editors in the future.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It was clear you were highly provoked, and matching the tenor of the people with whom you were discussing on the talk page. That's not to say the offending comment was acceptable, merely that there has been a lot of vitrol on the talk page, and it would be quite unfair for you to have been blocked for so long while other incivil editors skated by. A 24-hour block is long enough, and it seems you get the point. But, the incivility from you and other parties on this particular article should stop.

Request handled by: -- tariqabjotu

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

P.S. Please excuse me if my writing is not elaborate, as my first laungage is not English. Hope what I wanted to say was delivered to you. [User:Hkwon|Hkwon]] (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1-week Block Decision by user:SarekOfVulcan was Overturned by Another Admistrator[edit]

See above. Hkwon (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered lists[edit]

Hello HKwon, I just wanted to show you a quick short cut for numbered lists:

using a "pound" sign (#) at the beginning of the line is the easiest way.

so this:

# item 1
# item 2
# item 3
# item 4

Will give you this:

item 1
item 2
item 3
item 4

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the info. I did not know about this format, but will try to use it next time as it looks neat. Hkwon (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A warning from User:Sennen goroshi[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So nice of you to send me a word of advice. Next time, can you put it in a new section so that my talk page will not be cluttered? Hkwon (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, sorry for not making it neat and easy to see. Hopefully, there will not be a need for me to put another warning template on your page. I do worry a little, because you have been blocked twice in less than three weeks. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, such a threatening and unnecessary comeback. Are you a Wikipedia-designated Chief Justice or something? I guess some WP users resort to informing-on when they have no source or evidence to back up their claims. Report me like you did before if you think I violated some rules. No need to waste your breath/keyboard typing here. Hkwon (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No personal attacks. Did you hear that, User:Sennen goroshi? Hkwon (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hkwon, you were blocked six days ago for personal attacks, you were blocked less than a month ago for breaking 3RR - please calm down and stop being so aggressive. I did not threaten you, stop reading everything I say as a threat, and stop responding with such an aggressive tone. I templated you because you made three reverts, I could have just as easily reverted your final edit and baited you into reverting a 4th time. You are taking what is a simple content dispute too personally, get over it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sennen goroshi, if you are authorized to sanction me by calulating my block dates (six days or whatever), go ahead and do it. If not, I would rather you don't stain my talk page with personal messages that are useless for articles writings/revisions or any other contribution to Wikipedia. Well, nothing I can do if you won't...you have your freedom of speech, and it amuses me to see your messages from time to time anyway.

What agressive tone? At least I did not use profanities such as "bulls**t", "s**t", "Jesus f**king Christ", or "또라이" to someone. Bait me into reverting a 4th time? Haha! I always love your sense of humor. Am I so stupid to fall for that again? Probably not. It seems that you are taking it personal when you cannot provide reliable sources or persuasive arguments to back up your claims. Get over it.

I was gone for a couple of days on my vacation trip. I guess some articles/discussion pages might be messed up...Well, time to clean them up. Hkwon (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what happened to you[edit]

I'm sorry about it. I appreciate what you are trying to do and would like to try to help you with some advice and encouragement. It seems to me what happened here is others were able to win not with evidence and reason but by goading you into losing your cool and making procedural mistakes, thereby changing the subject from the matter at hand to procedure. I advise you as a friend not to let them change the subject by making you lose your cool and then wikilawyering you, gaming the system. It very hard not to lose your cool, I have had the same problem; fallen for the same trap. That is what they want you to do, lose your cool and respond in kind. You may not have to write as if you were Mr. Spock or a robot or some such, but actually that is probably what you should do, if you think about it. That's easier said than done once people know how to push your buttons, I know. So I will try to write encouraging words. Good luck, don't give up, be careful and be cool and take it easy and know that you have sympathy and support. Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my friend. I am quite short-tempered, but I think I am learning how things work. I will try to remember your advice every time and act calm whenver I am provoked. Hkwon (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on interacting with others[edit]

Best way to deal with hostilities form others: Stay calm and be civil.

That is the best way to relate with others. Sometimes you need to step back take a breather and allow things to run their course. As Chisrus said, don't allow other editors to goad you. Sometimes it is best to defend your position with calm words and a Zen attitude. Even when they anger you, stay calm and do not respond to others' hostilities. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too, User:Jerem43. I will try to remember your advice and act calm. Hkwon (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above; don't get sucked into User:Sennen Goroshi's attacks. You end up becoming a party to the problem. I've warned you both at the article now, and I just got done warning him at his talk page. While we're certainly having difficulty with the article itself, I guarantee we get nowhere if we descend into name calling. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Qwyrxian: Thank you. I would certainly heed your advice. I think I learned how to respond with other hostile editors' provoking messages, though. Hkwon (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-banned[edit]

Your editing on Korean cuisine related articles over the last few weeks has been persistently disruptive and, especially at Kimchi, has been fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen. I've had enough of this, and I've long been of the opinion that disruption on Korea-related topics can only be handled through strong administrative measures. You are therefore now indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat). If you make any edits about this topic, you will be blocked with no further warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice from user:Qwyrxian and user:Chrisrus[edit]

I have asked Fut.Perf. how he was able to issue this topic ban without either an Arbcom decision or community consensus, as I believe policy requires. I am certainly no admin, though, I do recommend that you voluntarily abide by the ban for the moment, as I may well be misunderstanding policy. But I do know that you'll want to tread lightly at the moment though, so that if the issue is raised at WP:ANI or the like, that you don't do anything that might add fuel to the fire. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this trickery! Keep up the good fight, Hkwon, and remember my advice! Calm, steady, don't be goaded into violating anything. Evidence and reason doesn't always win the day, but emotion never should on an encyclopedia. Remember the Oxford University paper I gave you, it's a reliable source on the highest caliber, and I think you can use it to support your position. Rah! Rah! for Hkwan, victim of sly wikilawyering, provocation, goading, trickery, and bullying! I don't agree with you 100% but defend your right to state the objective truth as you see it! I see the truth as somewhere in the middle of the extreme positions on the Korean dogmeat article, but I admit that I don't watch Kimchi. Chrisrus (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Chrisrus: Thank you for your support; I will not forget it. Sorry for my absence which probably caused you trouble. Now that I returned, let me examine what happened during my one-week absence and address issues appropriately. Hkwon (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's page, you'll see that he is, asking for your comments. Personally I recommend that you post on his page with your views on the matter. Obviously, the tactics you choose are your own, but I personally believe that Chrisrus's comments above are 100% the wrong way to go. Treating this as a battleground ("keep up the good fight") is surely a way to get blocked or banned for "real". This isn't a fight. You stated in Talk:Kimchi you valued my input, even though you disagreed with my stance; I feel, mostly, the same about you. I believe that, at least on Kimchi, you honestly had/have good reasons for taking the stance you were/are taking. I think that choosing to go to the Mediation Cabal (or if that doesn't work, some other aspect of DS) is the right choice. This is following procedure, this is trying to achieve consensus. While I still believe that FPaS's "topic ban" of you holds no weight (in terms of policy), it is clear form his user page that his opinion carries a lot of weight with relevant people in the community; in effect, this probably has more effect than policy. I'm recommending, even though I think I have less editing experience than you, that you commit (here or on FPaS's talk page) to a strict folllowing of relevant policies (no edit warring, civility, etc.). To be blunt, I would rather have your views, as extreme as I may find them sometimes, a part of the community, than have a calm environment with no dispute.

Which triggers one final thought in my mind--when you're disputing (i.e., posting on talk pages with evidence for your positions), you say some smart things, things that I understand even when I disagree. When you're fighting (i.e., when you're name calling, or when you're trying to control articles through edit-warring), you're not as useful (in my opinion) to the project, nor as pleasant to be around. If you could commit to disputing, rather than fighting, I think that your place here on en.wiki should be safe. I told FPaS on his talk that I wasn't convinced his "topic ban" of you was acceptable, but that I might be willing to defer to his experience and insight. Similarly, your opinions on your own actions will influence my (and, I believe) others' responses to this situation. If you wouldn't mind, please state clearly here (or at FPaS's talk page) how you believe you want to interact with en.wiki in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One final note, as an example: SG just added a comment to FPaS's talk page in the section I created regarding you ban. In my less than humble opinion, I think one of the worst things you could do is respond to his claims, no matter what you feel about them. Focus on your own actions, feelings, plans. Again, this is all my opinion; I'm just a relatively new editor, although I have been reading quite a bit on ANI and AN and seeing what does or does not work in terms of managing the "back-side" of WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Qwyrxian: I deeply appreciate your advice and support, despite some differences in our opinions. I have always known that you are a neutral and reasonable Wikipedia editor. I will wholesomely follow your advice, but let me say just a few things that might contradict your opinion.

1) user:Chrisrus's comments invoke further conflicts in some way, and I don't agree with that tone 100%, but I belive he or she meant to encourage me with a good intention.

2) You recommended me to commit to a strict folllowing of relevant policies on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise or my talk page. I, without a doubt, belive that you suggested this for my sake. But I will not do such thing, even if this guy was the creator of Wikipedia. I don't know anything about this User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, but I am sure the "indefinite topic ban" on me imposed from this administrator is unjustified. If not, why would User:Future Perfect at Sunrise suddenly change the "indefinite ban" to a "temporary block" after 3 days, after complaints from editors whom I don't even know?

3) I have deep respects for Wikipedia administrators, but I will not bow down to them if they act unreasonably. I am going to formally ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise what exactly the reasons for my banning are. This administrator changed the "indefinite topic ban" on me to a "temporary block", expiring in 3 days. But I don't want to endure even 3 days of unfair ban. I will request for an appeal now. Hkwon (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI Discussion (Fut.Perf's topic ban of Hkwon)[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban changed to temporary block[edit]

So, it seems there is some community disagreement with my previous decision to impose a topic ban on you editing Korean cuisine topics, on formal grounds. The ban is therefore moot, but I am instead blocking you for a week for the disruptive editing you displayed at Kimchi and its talk page. You will be allowed to edit again after this block expires, and we can in fact talk about lifting the block earlier too, if you show how you are willing to adopt a more constructive stance to editing in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove this block. It is purely punitive and selective given the situation. He hasn't done anything since you enacted your ban and now after a couple days of no problems, you turned around and blocked him because you couldn't get support for your ban.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can an administrator impose a topic-ban on an editor, and then change it to a complete edit block 3 days later, when the said editor did not do anything for a week since the first ban decision? What is the justification of this harsher sanction? Hkwon (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hkwon Returns[edit]

It's been a week since I had visited Wikipedia due to my business trip. It looks like a lot happened during this time. The first thing I saw was that I was or am under a topic ban which I believe absolutely unjustified, and that some of my fellow Wikipedia editors worked very hard for me and left me valuable advice, which I will not forget. (and, without a doubt, some editors who have been hostile to me did a lot of things to bury me.)

I guess I have many things to do from now on. First, let me thank to my friends and apologize to them for my absence which may have caused them unnecessary trouble. Second, I will thoroughly examine what happened during my absence, making appropriate replies to all messages to me. And finally, I will take care of this topic ban issue and come back to discussions which I was involved in, debating harder than before, probably. So many things to do; so little time...Hkwon (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! :) I am looking forward to working with you, but I am also frankly worried about it. You seem very angry and it's very important for the project that you stay frosty. I wish I could do something that would convince you not to repeat stuff like this [6]. In that post even your greatest sympathizer can't defend you by the end of it. I wish you could reassure me that you see the wisdom of not talking like this to anyone no matter how angry you get. It doesn't help your cause, I know, I've had the same mistakes, abeit nothing quite that bad. We really need your cooperation, but please think about how you can "win", even if that means strategic compromising, by playing it Mr. Spock, go robot, evidence and reason and appearing extra ultra reasonable and calm and everything and you'll show'm that way, really. Don't come out swinging so hard, it'll backfire on you and, probably more importantly, for your agenda in terms of the article(s). Please never let a reader know how angry you are if you are angry. Reasonable guy all the way, go go Hkwon go, play it cool stay frosty never let'm use your temper agaisnt you, my friend and good luck I'll be watching and looking for a chance to help but neither I nor anyone will be able to defend undefendable stuff like the above. Chrisrus (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reviewing a user block[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

See the following section ->

Decline reason:

You've made something like ten reverts on Kimchi this month. Future Perfect at Sunrise waswell within his discretion to call this edit-warring and block you for it, and so I see no reason to lift this block. Sandstein 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reasons for the request[edit]

The administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise put me under indefinitely topic ban on 20:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC). The reason given by the banner was as follows:[reply]
"Your editing on Korean cuisine related articles over the last few weeks has been persistently disruptive and, especially at Kimchi, has been fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen. I've had enough of this, and I've long been of the opinion that disruption on Korea-related topics can only be handled through strong administrative measures."
I wonder what kind of editing on Korean cuisine related articles made by me was "persistently disruptive" and how so. I have only edited two articles kimchi and Korean cuisine during this month (July 2010), never reverting anyone's edit more than twice. Can we see ONE example of "persistently disruptive" editings by me?
I wonder why does User:Future Perfect at Sunrise consider the discussions on those article as "the lamest edit wars [he or she]'ve ever seen". The discussions on talk pages, at least key opinions provided by me, were all supported by reliable and verifiable sources or physical evidences.
This administrator changed the "indefinite topic-ban" to a "temporary block" after 3 days, without any feedback from me, at 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC), saying that "It seems there is some community disagreement with my previous decision to impose a topic ban on you editing Korean cuisine topics, on formal grounds. The ban is therefore moot, but I am instead blocking you for a week for the disruptive editing you displayed at Kimchi and its talk page."
Then why can't I edit any Wikipedia pages now, including the talk pages of editors who have been never involved in the said topic? This decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC) is more strict, as a complete block from editing, than the previous topic ban. I have not made any edits for a week, since the first topic ban decision. Why should I get a more strict sanction despite my complete inaction since the first sanction? On what grounds?[reply]
user:Chrisrus, user:Qwyrxian, and user:Crossmr on my talk page, and user:Martin Hogbin, user:Heimstern Läufer, user:Cydevil38, and user:SarekOfVulcan on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page oppose the blocking decision. With no one supporting the decision that I know of. That looks like at least a semi-consensus against the excessive and unfair sanction on a user. Hkwon (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I blocked you because you had been edit-warring – that's the normal thing to do. Please see here [7] for an explanation why I considered the block still necessary during the days you weren't editing: I had no way of knowing whether, if and when you returned, you wouldn't immediately resume the same kind of disruptive editing.

As for whether the block is actually harsher than the topic ban – yes, I guess in some ways it is, which is regrettable, and which is exactly why I tried the topic ban first, but my colleagues wouldn't let me.

Now, there are different ways out. As with any administrative sanction, this can immediately be lifted as soon as you make a credible commitment that you will not continue the disruptive actions. Unfortunately, in what you write above, I can as yet sense no willingness to reconsider your own approach to this dispute. However, once you have taken a look at how the talk page debate has developed during your absence, perhaps you can give us an idea here of how you plan to re-engage in that page without triggering new strife. – Alternatively, if you just want to edit peacefully elsewhere, I have no problem unblocking you if you undertake to stay away from the disputed pages at least for the duration of the present block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* To User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Well, I looked at the link you provided, and it was a conversation between you and user:SarekOfVulcan, who questioned your decision to block me, criticizing your blocking action despite my complete inaction for the last week. I don't think that conversation would help much to justify your action.

* "The block is harsher than the topic ban, which is regrettable", but your colleagues wouldn't let you make more reasonable decision? First of all, so what is the reason for changing to a harsher sanction? Who are those colleagues and how did they not let you? How can a sanction made by an administrator change to a harsher sanction made by the same administrator, without any justification except for a statement "my colleagues wouldn't let me"? Was there any other serious violation by ME which deserves a harsher sanction during my ABSENCE?

* As a matter of fact, I could just wait till August 1 anyway, the day on which your ban expires, only 2 days from now. But I don't want to wait like that, justifying an unfair blocking decision.

* "Different ways out - Make a credible commitment that you will not continue the disruptive actions". Uh-uh. I would not make such a commitment as I had not made such disruptive actions. Nobody, including you, showed everyone that I have made disruptive actions like you claim, when and how. (As I have not)

* As I have already made request for reviewing your decision, I don't need you to consider "different ways out" or condescending "unblocking". I would rather leave Wikipedia for good than make such a baseless compromise. If another administrator accepts my request, the block will be gone. Even if not, the block will be lifted in 2 days.

* "Perhaps you can give us an idea here of how you plan to re-engage in that page without triggering new strife": Certainly. I will make edits which are relevant to articles and based on reliable sources as much as necessary. You are welcomed to block me again if any of my edits violate WP rules. Hkwon (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call a spade a spade shall we? You blocked him because you got your fingers slapped for overreaching your authority. The block was purely punitive and in the days since you enacted the ban he hadn't done anything wrong. Blocks are preventative, and there is no indication this was preventing anything. I mean you turned around and on Melonball's page said you would have blocked him if the page wasn't protected at the time. Yet you blocked Hkown. At 3RR any report of this age would be called Stale and not acted upon, in fact that is how Melonball recently go out of a block. Someone who could have been blocked 2 or 3 times during this escapade and who you are seemingly allowing to walk all over the situation along with sennen Goroshi.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I want to add to this is that the topic ban was far far more strict, in my opinion--a ban would have meant you literally could never discuss any issue even tangentially related to Korean cuisine, nor discuss it on those article's talk page, and that making even a single edit on said topic would result in an immediate block. Furthermore, that ban was indefinite, and since it was issued Fut.Perf. without consensus, you would have had to succeed at convincing only him/her. As for the block, any admin can lift it, and Fut.Perf. has explicitly said s/he will accept another admin lifting it. That they have not done so implies at least tacit approval of the block. As you said, it's only 2 more days in any event. As a side note, I'm glad to hear that you were just away on business--I had been worried that upon seeing all of these issues you had just given up on Wikipedia, which I don't think you should have to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI Discussion (Fut.Perf's topic ban of Hkwon)[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban changed to temporary block[edit]

So, it seems there is some community disagreement with my previous decision to impose a topic ban on you editing Korean cuisine topics, on formal grounds. The ban is therefore moot, but I am instead blocking you for a week for the disruptive editing you displayed at Kimchi and its talk page. You will be allowed to edit again after this block expires, and we can in fact talk about lifting the block earlier too, if you show how you are willing to adopt a more constructive stance to editing in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove this block. It is purely punitive and selective given the situation. He hasn't done anything since you enacted your ban and now after a couple days of no problems, you turned around and blocked him because you couldn't get support for your ban.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can an administrator impose a topic-ban on an editor, and then change it to a complete edit block 3 days later, when the said editor did not do anything for a week since the first ban decision? What is the justification of this harsher sanction? Hkwon (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hkwon Returns[edit]

It's been a week since I had visited Wikipedia due to my business trip. It looks like a lot happened during this time. The first thing I saw was that I was or am under a topic ban which I believe absolutely unjustified, and that some of my fellow Wikipedia editors worked very hard for me and left me valuable advice, which I will not forget. (and, without a doubt, some editors who have been hostile to me did a lot of things to bury me.)

I guess I have many things to do from now on. First, let me thank to my friends and apologize to them for my absence which may have caused them unnecessary trouble. Second, I will thoroughly examine what happened during my absence, making appropriate replies to all messages to me. And finally, I will take care of this topic ban issue and come back to discussions which I was involved in, debating harder than before, probably. So many things to do; so little time...Hkwon (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! :) I am looking forward to working with you, but I am also frankly worried about it. You seem very angry and it's very important for the project that you stay frosty. I wish I could do something that would convince you not to repeat stuff like this [8]. In that post even your greatest sympathizer can't defend you by the end of it. I wish you could reassure me that you see the wisdom of not talking like this to anyone no matter how angry you get. It doesn't help your cause, I know, I've had the same mistakes, abeit nothing quite that bad. We really need your cooperation, but please think about how you can "win", even if that means strategic compromising, by playing it Mr. Spock, go robot, evidence and reason and appearing extra ultra reasonable and calm and everything and you'll show'm that way, really. Don't come out swinging so hard, it'll backfire on you and, probably more importantly, for your agenda in terms of the article(s). Please never let a reader know how angry you are if you are angry. Reasonable guy all the way, go go Hkwon go, play it cool stay frosty never let'm use your temper agaisnt you, my friend and good luck I'll be watching and looking for a chance to help but neither I nor anyone will be able to defend undefendable stuff like the above. Chrisrus (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reviewing a user block[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

See the following section ->

Decline reason:

You've made something like ten reverts on Kimchi this month. Future Perfect at Sunrise waswell within his discretion to call this edit-warring and block you for it, and so I see no reason to lift this block. Sandstein 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reasons for the request[edit]

The administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise put me under indefinitely topic ban on 20:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC). The reason given by the banner was as follows:[reply]
"Your editing on Korean cuisine related articles over the last few weeks has been persistently disruptive and, especially at Kimchi, has been fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen. I've had enough of this, and I've long been of the opinion that disruption on Korea-related topics can only be handled through strong administrative measures."
I wonder what kind of editing on Korean cuisine related articles made by me was "persistently disruptive" and how so. I have only edited two articles kimchi and Korean cuisine during this month (July 2010), never reverting anyone's edit more than twice. Can we see ONE example of "persistently disruptive" editings by me?
I wonder why does User:Future Perfect at Sunrise consider the discussions on those article as "the lamest edit wars [he or she]'ve ever seen". The discussions on talk pages, at least key opinions provided by me, were all supported by reliable and verifiable sources or physical evidences.
This administrator changed the "indefinite topic-ban" to a "temporary block" after 3 days, without any feedback from me, at 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC), saying that "It seems there is some community disagreement with my previous decision to impose a topic ban on you editing Korean cuisine topics, on formal grounds. The ban is therefore moot, but I am instead blocking you for a week for the disruptive editing you displayed at Kimchi and its talk page."
Then why can't I edit any Wikipedia pages now, including the talk pages of editors who have been never involved in the said topic? This decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC) is more strict, as a complete block from editing, than the previous topic ban. I have not made any edits for a week, since the first topic ban decision. Why should I get a more strict sanction despite my complete inaction since the first sanction? On what grounds?[reply]
user:Chrisrus, user:Qwyrxian, and user:Crossmr on my talk page, and user:Martin Hogbin, user:Heimstern Läufer, user:Cydevil38, and user:SarekOfVulcan on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page oppose the blocking decision. With no one supporting the decision that I know of. That looks like at least a semi-consensus against the excessive and unfair sanction on a user. Hkwon (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I blocked you because you had been edit-warring – that's the normal thing to do. Please see here [9] for an explanation why I considered the block still necessary during the days you weren't editing: I had no way of knowing whether, if and when you returned, you wouldn't immediately resume the same kind of disruptive editing.