User talk:Horang2022

Welcome![edit]

Hi Horang2022! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Lilka) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice and warning[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Violations of the biographies of living persons policy or the edit warring policy (which isn't limited to the three-revert rule) may lead to a topic ban without further warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request for topic 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).

Horang2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because Reiro violated WP:3RR because Reiro's editing is revert of my contribution which was displayed 10 days. I did not violated 3RR. Reiro participated discussion after My reverts. I posted my opinions in Talk:Lilka and the real name was supported by an inline citation to two reliable, published source. Horang2022 (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC) My last revert was performed at 08:46, 22 January 2022‎ and Reiro participated discussion at 11:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC) I should be unblocked and Reiro should be blocked. Horang2022 (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. WP:EDITWAR. WP:GAB --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:48, 22 January 2022 (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.

The block is about your behavior, not others'. You have edit warred to include content without having obtained the necessary consensus to do so (WP:ONUS), knowing that your addition was being objected to. You have mentioned "3RR" in your edit summary, so you knew that the edit warring policy exists.

Just to avoid any impression of personal bias, the other user has not been blocked because the edit warring policy contains an explicit exemption for removing "material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" about living people. With WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS in mind, blocking someone for removing disputed material is something I usually avoid. It's perfectly fine if the material is kept out of the article until a consensus for inclusion is found; it's disruptive to edit war it back into the article without such consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I made 3RR but Reiro made 4RR or 3RR. Because source from Shinmoongo News contains a screenshot of Korean Intellectual Property Office database, there is no doubt for Lilka's real name. I posted my opinion to Talk:Lilka before revert Reiro's editing, but Reiro did not. I did not violated three-revert rule. Other informations are also supported by many inline citations. I should be unblocked and Reiro should be blocked. Removal of Verifiable and sourced material are not Exempted by 3RR rule.

On the other hands, I told to Reiro there is no doubt for Lilka's real name and told that one secondary source contains reliable primary-source material. Applying WP:BURDEN to block me and not block Reiro is highly unfair. I am obeyed WP:BURDEN but Reiro did not.

08:36, 22 January 2022‎ Horang2022 talk contribs‎ 8,067 bytes +1,952‎ Because three sources about her real name are independent and WP:BLPPRIMARY said that where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, they are reliable source. Namiwiki is not reliable source. Please participate discussion and do not make edit war. undo Tags: Undo Reverted
08:13, 22 January 2022‎ Horang2022 talk contribs‎ 8,067 bytes +1,952‎ Lilka is not private individual because Lilka made many self-promotional activities. On the other hands, Lilka's real name was mentioned in independent three reliable sources. Furthermore, Lilka intentionally mentioned her name in her internet broadcasting. undo Tag: Reverted

Reiro should be blocked and I should be unblocked, regardless temporary state of the article during discussion. Horang2022 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Horang2022,

Not all information that is verifiable should necessarily be included in an article. WP:BLP takes precedence in most disputes. You'll need to go to WP:BLPN if you want to include this information. This has to stop being an edit war between two editors and you need feedback from editors who are uninvolved in this dispute. If you return from your block and continue to insist on including this information in the article, it could result in a longer and more extensive loss of editing privileges. I think you should drop your insistence on what you want and bring this conflict to the attention of other editors who could support your interpretation of policy or disagree with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]