User talk:Охранник Леса

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Охранник Леса! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Vif12vf. I noticed that you recently removed content from Government of North Korea without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vif12vf. User Smithryan977 added a text, that was already in the article. Thus, Smithryan977 inserted before the preamble and the information box and repeated of the text, which been in the article. I canceled his edit. Охранник Леса (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a tendentious editing single-purpose account. See the ANI thread for evidence.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 19:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by Sandstein, without giving a link to my violations of the rules. Охранник Леса (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The linked ANI thread goes over the issue. If you don't understand why your edits were wrong, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. Your edits to North Korea have been against policy and show that you are here to push an agenda. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:39, 19 June 2020 (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.

CaptainEek, there are two links with accusations in the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Охранник_Леса: 1) the fisrt case is an accusation in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and 2) the second case is an accusation in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Охранник Леса (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refuted both accusations, because I returned the consensus version based on the Washington Post in the first case and I returned the consensus version, where there were no sources at all, in the second case. I did not enter any new information in both cases. See below: Охранник Леса (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First case is an accusation

Охранник Леса, this is a violation of tendentious and disruptive editing. The BBC source has a section header titled 'Systematic abuse,' so no, you can't use existing source for new addition. That is not allowed. Any more edits like that and I am prepared to block you indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. El_C 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 June 2018 Bangalamania made an edit, which used the word "allegations". After a non-consensual edit, on 13 June 2020, I returned the consensus version. The Washington Post wrote, that "KNCA's insults appear to be part of a broader attempt to discredit the U.N. report, which made allegations of crimes against humanity in North Korea". And I wrote on the talk page, that the term "allegations" are neutral and doesn't mean, that charges of human rights violations by the UN, HRW and AI are substantiated or unsubstantiated. Охранник Леса (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Охранник Леса, consensus can change, especially if we're talking about 2018. The content needs to match the source, that is the point. El_C 19:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before a non-consensual edits, 7 June 2020, there existed a consensus about the word "allegations". After non-consensual edits, 11 June 2020, there started discussion on the talk page. And there, in the article, started edit warring for promote non-consensual version. According to the source, the consensus version use the word "allegations". Охранник Леса (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is whitewashing of what the first source attributed, the BBC, says — I don't think there's a doubt that we're talking about real "systemic abuse," as the BBC writes. I cannot read the WaPo source because it's behind a paywall, so it's of no use to me. El_C 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't made violations in the article ("tendentious and disruptive editing"). The Washington Post is not whitewashing of North Korea. Disable the ad blocker for the WaPo's site and read the WP's article. I wrote that I think that the term "allegations" is neutral and consensual. Need to have a discussion (these are the words for everyone) on the talk page to reaching a consensus in the article. Охранник Леса (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second case is an accusation

Another example Anyway, I'm not gonna do that. Jeff Bezos will just have to do without my support. But that's not the point. I realize you're well-versed in Wikipedia (different-language notwithstanding) nuances, but this is about systemic whitewashing on your part. And therein lies the problem. You have to represent scholarly and mainstream consensus in your overall edits, otherwise that editing becomes unwelcome here. El_C 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 June 2020 Jack Upland made an edit in the article of Kim Jong-un, where Jack Upland wrote the sentence ("There have been no major changes in North Korea since Kim became leader."). On 9 June 2020 I restored the consensus version (because new edits were made), which contained the sentence. I think that the term "cult of personality" isn't correct, when there is a description of a leadership. Show my violation of the rules, because "systemic whitewashing" is not the rules of the English Wikipedia. Охранник Леса (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TE. You cannot go around Wikipedia with the single purpose of showing North Korea or its leadership in a more positive light. I submit that that is what you're doing. The specifics in each instance are less relevant than the cumulative effect of these edits. El_C 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, exactly. single-purpose accounts like Охранник Леса are apt to be more heavily scrutinized, but anyone who does this would end up with the same questions being asked. Guy (help!) 14:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't show my violation of the rules, because the cumulative effect of my edits consists of individual edits. Охранник Леса (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Охранник Леса, you keep saying that, but the evidence is otherwise, I challenge. El_C 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Show evidence of my violations of the rules. Охранник Леса (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Охранник Леса, repetition is unhelpful. El_C 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't show evidence of my violations of the rules. I can also say that repetition is unhelpful. Охранник Леса (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Охранник Леса, what you think doesn't matter. What reliable sources say, does. Guy (help!) 14:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were not a sources in the paragraph of the preamble. Охранник Леса (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Охранник Леса (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that you are unblocked, you are topic banned from North Korea, broadly construed. Guy (help!) 21:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=North_Korea&users=%D0%9E%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA+%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0&users=Sagflaps&server=enwiki Moxy-

18:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]