Chernobog95

Hwasong-14

Lay off insulting other editors. I haven't re-written the engines part yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your addition to Hwasong-14 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please don't cut and paste material from websites (in this case, https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/north-koreas-icbm-a-new-missile-and-a-new-era/) - particularly when the website uses non-neutral terms when discussing the topic. Bencherlite^Talk 14:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Hwasong-14. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, how dare you insert that I "prefer outdated information" on your edit on the Hwasong-14, for your information, I do NOT "prefer outdated information". Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing by reverting my edits as you misinform/mislead people by forcing information that is not up to date and has no relevance. Telling the truth to you is anyway personal attacks. Be offended at facts of your actions, how I dare point out your actions of using older information instead of newer more accurate ones. You are forcinf 6700km which is in accurate as David Wright admitted he didn't take into account earths rotation and Schilling revised his 8000km estimation to 9700km.Chernobog95 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. The source you added does not say that the missile has a range of 9,700 km, it says that it might one day get it, when fully developed... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Then by your standard none of sources involving theoretical range of North Korean missile is valid and so be it that estimation of 6700km for Hwasong-14 stays there despite individual who made that estimation has said it is invalid. Chernobog95 20:47 July 11 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Amortias (T)(C) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It is unfair that there is double standards about sources, the ones I used are from well respected and credible, often used as sources. Those individuals insist on 6700km figure by David Wright who later retracted his estimation due to not accounting for Earth's rotation into calculation of theoretical range while also they are denying 9700km estimate by John Schilling that is also theoretical. I am unfairly blocked due to false charges of poor/invalid sources to deny Hwasong-14 and other pages being updated with more relevant accurate information. John Schilling gave 8000km estimate and he is part of 38North and his newer estimate is 9700km. My last edit was a compromise to then and here I am blocked from editing due to narrative that is factually incorrect.

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).

Chernobog95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

sources I used are valid and don't break rules "path of prospero" (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a valid unblock request. This is just a continuation of your reason for your block instead. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (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.

Did you take into account that the source you provide is actually copyrighted, and you used it without the holder's permission? SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I only referenced the source(link) like others did, referencing it is not banned as evident by extensive referencing of their articles and same for NK News on wikipedka. All of the sudden those two individuals and now apparently moderator/admin deemed it apparently as unreliable/poor source as they force one information that originator of it deemed flawed and gave a reason why. Chernobog95 03:49 12th July 2017

But why did you cyberbully these users as mentioned on the warnings posted above? You should know doing that is against WP:NPA. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

They are guilty of what they did as proven by their actions as they repeatedly reverted my edits to force information that is outdated and no longer relevant due to newer more accurate appearing. Calling out for actions that they commited is not cyberbulling which is being used as a cop out to not feel the consequences of their actions that lead to ignorance. Chernobog 95 12:04 July 12th 2017

Your block

You were blocked for repeatedly adding material that is not supported by the source you added, i.e. the source does not say what you claim it says (see what I wrote in the final warning you got, and also see Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#Range of the Hwasong-14). If you can't understand simple English in messages posted here, and can't understand what the sources say, you shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You are delusional by considering that I don't understand simple english as you ignore and don't want to admit that my proficiency of english is decent for a non native as evident by others able to understand well what I am saying. You claim it isn't supported by sources as you also falsely claim that it is my claim as you either ignore what is written in those articles or for one reason or another it goes against your interest or you have issues with understanding your mothertounge. Forcing range estimate that originator of it said it is flawed due to not accounting Earth's rotation makes that estimation invalid as it inaccurate by not incorporating crucial world related detail that Earth rotates thus forcing such estimate goes against one principle of Wikipedja which is accuracy that used/presented information has. Their claim is not my claim, it is in article and you take out of context what goes against your interest. You can lie all you want, 6700km estimate is inaccurate and 9700km is theoretical as any other estimate about North Korean missile and having double standards is what you are guilty of as evident by your actions. Chernobog95 12:27 July 12th 2017

What you don't seem to understand is that the source doesn't say that the Hwasong-14 has a range of 9,700 km, only that there is a slight chance that it, when fully developed, might perhaps be able to reach that far. And per Wikipedia's rules we do not, repeat not, add mere speculations (see WP:CRYSTAL), especially not when the mere speculations are presented as facts, as in your repeated edits on both North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and Hwasong-14. Which means that you will be blocked again if you make the same type of edits again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is your claim is a logical fallacy and double standards as again you are taking out of context what is written in the source as you falsely claim it is presented as facts as you ignore it is an estimate thus speculation as previous estimations are yet this one is invalid according to your standard which is a double standard and good, block me out of your hypocrisy and force informations that are outdated. Your claim about John Schilling has said contradicts what he actually said as you claim maybe with slight chance while he said likely thus context between what you claim he said and what he said are considerably if not vastly different. That is your interpretation that misinterprets what he has actually said and thus I am blocked from editting due to being accurate in expressing his statement without changing the context of it while you change it completely. Maybe is used when it is a posibility as something that is not certain while Likely when it is probable as it more in realm of certaintywith this being the case involving theoretical range of missile as previous estimations were. He is certain about its capability and disregarding view of expert who has decades of experience is disrespectful to his hard work and scientists like him. You need to stop with denial and accept reality, lying to yourself, lying about who said what by forcing your interpretation that takes out of context his statement and being hypocriyte about involving sources proves that you are unreliable due to your astroturfing/trolling. As a person that you are, I can't expect any apology from you as shown by your behaviour of brinkmanship and beligerence towards facts. His estimate is a speculation as others before him and me being condemn for being factual about what he has said is pathetic turn of events as you and others force your own facts like Fox News with Fox Facts. Chernobog95 14:12 Julyn12th 2017

That still doesn't give you the right to cyberbully those users and to spam your edits on the aforementioned pages. In fact, you technically sparked an edit war upon in inserting your edits, and as Thomas states, you inserted false information when you claimed that "the Hwasong-14 HAS a range of 9,700 km. according to ONE expert". Life isn't fair, but that does not give you the right to spam information onto this site. Wikipedia has rules for a reason: to keep troublemakers from inserting false information and vandalism like what you did. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That still doesn't prove your subjective rather than objective involving your false claim of cyberbullying for making valid criticism while those individuals continue to make false claims about source I used as now you are joining their fallacy by claiming that it is false information thus contradicting and ignoring both rules of this site and veteran expert as you choose to use logical fallacy about just being just one expert thus exposing yourself as a uninformed individual who claims it is false information without reading articles nor even attempting to so aome research and youe accusation of vandalims means now by your standard that you just have set anyone updating pages with more reliable accurate up to date is vandal. You and others have double standards, you are hypocrites who are incapable of admitting own wrong doing nor apologize for own mistakes. You simply further dig your own hole deeper with false accusations and logical fallacies. By your own standards any range estimate that is theoretical speculation involving North Korean missiles means 6700km figure from David Wright is invalid and he said his figure is invalid due to not taking into account Earth's rotation. The more you resist the more it is obvious that you pathetic people as evident by your petty logical fallacies and false accusations are in denial about reality of situation involving North Korean missiles. Oh... It is just one expert, sure. Lets be uninformed like you. 1...2...3... Its not 1, its 3 who estimate range well over 9000! Its OVER 9000!!! Chernobog95 18:18 July 12th 20!7

• But you're the one who's blocked here, not us.

Your attitude to other editors is the problem here. No discussion, just reverts and abuse. No-one wants to work with you. Some might choose to work around you, others will choose to avoid articles that involve you. No doubt you will persist in this insulting behaviour to others (which you aren't getting from other editors) and so you'll be blocked again and again, for longer and longer. And no one will miss you.

If you want to cooperate with other editors, you'll be welcome here. I know I could use the help. It's an obscure topic and you seem to know more about it than others here. But not at the cost of continual abuse from you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Me being blocked does not mean they are right and I am wrong, it is abuse of power that was given to moderators who aren't neutral as evident by their behaviour while I am alegedly cyberbullying for expressing disagreement with their vandalism of forcing outdated flawed source that turned out to be unreliable couple days later after I put it couple/few pages(when I was logged out?) which is one involving David Wrights estimate speculation. I don't give a fuck if I miss or do not miss one, I only care about facts and will be critical of others who deny those facts under false pretense with non existent foundation when smoke is cleared. The behaviour that I am getting from other editors are response to my critique in form of fallacies be it in accusations and or involving sources I used. It is impossible to "cooperate" with those who are saboteurs who astroturf as they feel abuaed when confronted with facts. You saw their reaction, it is denial and in the end form of censorship for using more reliable up to date information. Their narrative is one great piece of mental gymnastics. Chernobog95 21:02 July 12th 2017

Andy's right, all you're doing is acting unprofessional and childish over just one piece of information and trying to play innocent by denying that you're abusing your edits. If you don't like how the article is written, then I recommend you avoid editing the pages relating to the [Hwasong-14]] in the future. And btw, I forgotten the face that you attacked me by stating that I "prefer outdated information", you should be ashamed for saying such a foolish claim. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yea, I "attacked" you by pointing out the obvious and your accusation of abusing edits is hilarious as that is what you are guilty of by reverting withour explanation for majority of them. My claim is supported by your actions and date of those articles as you and others kept reverting it to previous one that is outdated and is not considered reliable anymore by the one who made it which is David Wright while also denying newer estimate from John Schilling with Thomas.W claiming he said maybe when in fact likely, two words with vastly different meaning. That one piece of information is crucial as it involves range of the missile and design of said missile. You would have known that if you have read the article rather than be uninformed and state "just one piece of information" as if it wasn't nothing that comes from a veteran in missile technology. Who is the next one you will show off how uninformed you are about the subject? Uzi Rubin? Jeffrey Lewis? The one who is unprofessional is you with editing a page in which you know little to nothing apparently otherwise if you were well informed you would have known who these individuals are thus would label as just one piece of information as if its not that important, borderline irrelevant. Chernobog95 21:58 July 12th 2017

SaramanEmerald, either you took my remarks towards "attacking" literally thus you didn't notice sarcasm with " or you are intentionaly taking out of context what I wrote thus being fallacious. Pick your poison, either way apologize be it a honest mistake or malicious intent. Chernobog95 23:39 July 12th 2017

I agree with Hornetzilla78, making such a preposterous claim that a user "prefers outdated information" is just a prime example of cyber bullying. How would you like it if someone (and not me as this is an example) called you a "North Korean sympathizer/supporter" or "Anti-American"?
SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently cyberbullying is according to you when I point out action of a individual as proven by actions of said individjal. My behaviour does not prove such label is justified unlike his actions. Chernobog95 22;06 July 12th 2017

You do realize that by posting your latest rant, you admitted that you purposely attacked Hornetzilla78 by means of a direct violation towards WP:NPA. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You realize that by taking out of context what I have wrote you proves yourself as unreliable individual due to astroturfing like this gem of yours. I haven't admitted, read it again what I have written. Forcing narrative that I admitted is fallacy, it is fallacious narrative that takes out of context what I have written. I am blocked for unsourced material which is fallacy as it is all sourced and David Wright is part of 38North if someone though that it is unsourced that he said he didn't take Earth's rotation in his estimate. Chernobog95 23:28 July 12th 2017

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SamaranEmerald (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet I didn't vandalize, why don't you read the rules and articles involving vandalism for a change? You are forcing a narrative that isn't supported by rules of wikipedia for which reach for yet your conjectures/assertions you force as facts/truth. So according to you to your standards and not wikipedias rules I am vandalizing for adding information from sources and individuals that wikipedia deems reliable. Is The Diplomat and 38North unreliable/invalid? No. All you do is take out of context what I wrote and thrown conjectures/assertions at me without evidence so I should tolerate your false accusations about my actions which do not break Wikipedia's rules? No I won't. You use vandalism as excuse to censor information that is newer and more detailed from sources that are accepted by this site. How long will you continue with this charade of a show of fallacies? How long others will continue? Will I again be blocked due to "unsourced materials" by moderator who does not bother to read and or do some research? It is pathetic how there is resistance to facts. Read those articles for a change. Chernobog95 13th July 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Your recent edits

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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

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) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your addition was challenged as WP:UNDUE and you were asked to take the issue to the talkpage. See WP:BRD Don't keep restoring it. You were recently blocked for edits to this and related articles so I suggest that you be particularly careful. Meters (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, mention those blocks and ignore fact those were unjustified with false claim made against me and double standards. Taking it to talk page is pointless as it is clear that false claims are being made about that information. It isn't copyrighted nor any of those are blogs. Feel free to support censorship. Deny and lie like others have done so before. - Chernobog95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 (talk • contribs) 22:40, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV said nothing about the material being copyrighted. He or she said it was undue. If it's undue it does not matter whether if the sources are non-WP:RS blogs or not. It's up to you to discuss the material on the talk page. If you think false claims are being made about the information then the talk page is where you go to discuss the issue. Accusing editors of censorship and lying are personal attacks. You have been warned about this before too. As User:Andy Dingley said, "Your attitude to other editors is the problem here. No discussion, just reverts and abuse. No-one wants to work with you" Meters (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is the questioned content I think it is, my main problem is with the sources used: thenation, RT and globalresearch.ca are all on the batshit-crazy / biased as hell blocklist. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If so, is CNN and Fox News on that list too? One way or another to someone that or that news outlet will seem/look bat shit crazy to them as it conflicts with their personality. It does not justify censoring what Bruce Cummings has said(that quote if from he said in one of interviews, I think there is it video on youtube where he says that..Chernobog95 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2017 (GTM 1+)

What about arirang.com? Chernobog95 used that as a source on Sanctions against North Korea. 70.198.130.112 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that source and haven't been looking at that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see where the comment about copyright is coming from now. The material was first added (twice) by a different user (Lescandinave) using only one of the sources, and was incorrectly removed by IPs citing copyright issues. Chernobog95 is correct that there are no copyright issues in reporting what someone has said, but the material has now been challenged based on the reliability of the sources (WP:RS) and whether the content should be included at all (WP:UNDUE). If Chernobog95 wants to argue for the material's inclusion he must do so on the article's talk page, and without further personal attacks. I will leave comments on the IPs' pages about their incorrect copyright reasons for the removal. Meters (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If? Your conditioning is fallacious as I am arguing and you are ignoring what is happening on my talk page also you jumped to conclussions without doing proper research/investigation like those who before you. Chernobog95 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2017 (GTM 1+)

Actually added 3 times by Lescandinave [1], [2], [3] and removed 3 times by IPs [4] (did not mention copyright), [5], [6]. Meters (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Slow edit-warring

Slow-edit-warring to try to insert material contested by other editors is not appropriate. Use article talkpages to gain consensus - it appears to me that you've almost never used an article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) False, I haven't entered content that was contested. Please repeat and lie. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:20, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

True: [7], [8] and [9]. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't and now you lied. Content isn't the issue. Please lie, again. You will as you will again spin with fallacious comparison of edit you reverted with two previous one as you ignore different content and sources. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:40, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

So you somehow didn't insert the Bruce Cumings quote three times as the diffs show? Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I did insert quotes of him, I didn't claim/say I didn't as you again take out of context as you focus on quotes of him rather than sources and content of edit you reversed and then fallaciously compared to two previous ones. Chernobog95 (talk) 4:50, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

You inserted the same thing three times, with varying sources. That's exactly what I'm focusing on. Why is this particular quote so important, and why does it deserve special emphasis? You're edit-warring to include it, changing the source has no bearing on the actual content. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And on the energy edits, if you're going to use North Korean sources you need to specifically attribute the content to North Korean media, and not present government-controlled media as unquestioned fact. "According to North Korean media" is a necessary preface - nobody seriously believes that North Korean media serve any interest other than those of the North Korean government. Better yet, please find an independent source with a reputation for accuracy in North Korean affairs. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No, two times. You compare my edit that you yourself reversed with my previos ones as you ignore that content is different and are you allowed to remove it because context of those is similar despite fact that content nor context were not challenged? Despite the fact the source(websites) were the issue and not actual content/context nor sourced/websites that are used in third edit. Special emphasis? History. History. Have you bothered to read what section is being edited? I haven't used North Korean sources.Chernobog95 (talk) 5:06, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

You inserted the Cumings quote three times. You have inserted the energy edits twice. Other editors challenged the Cumings quote on the basis of sourcing and as undue emphasis on a single opinion. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't deny I inserted Cumings quotes three times, you are implying that I did and that is your narrative. False, they challenged source not the quote as assert former has to do with later. You want to believe its opinion and you removed my third which has two "opinions" which you treat facts as opinions also it is evident that you're uninformed/biased by claiming SK news outlet is from NK. No, two times. You compare my edit that you yourself reversed with my previos ones as you ignore that content is different and are you allowed to remove it because context of those is similar despite fact that content nor context were not challenged? Despite the fact the source(websites) were the issue and not actual content/context nor sourced/websites that are used in third edit. Special emphasis? History. History. Have you bothered to read what section is being edited? Chernobog95 (talk) 5:22, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

Ah, thank you. I see Arirang is based in South Korea. I still have my doubts about its viability as an independent source, and I still think it should be attributed in the text rather than just stated. However, I was wrong about its provenance. See what happens when we have a discussion? As for the Cumings quote, you still haven't offered a helpful explanation of why his opinion needs such special emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't thank me, be ashamed of yourself of your bias as you jumped to conclussions instead of doing quick researching like less than a minute of "work". See when your bias makes you very incompetent. Inform yourself better and shame you aren't aware of caliber Cumings is, Why have you removed non-Cumings text? (talk) 5:58, 21 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I see no corresponding effort on your part to do anything but proclaim you're right with no attempt at justification or accommodation of consensus. And you're actively edit-warring, against Wikipedia policy. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am right. I won't bend over for "consesus" to cater to their opinions over facts/truth. So did you edit-warred too, if I going to be punished then you and others must too or I will be discriminate? Double standards and hypocrisy, should I expect that from you and others? How can I expect fairness from likes of you who by actions support those who change goal posts to justify removal of historical facts, how? (talk) 4:59, 22 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

You don't get a pass on edit-warring by believing you're right. I also stopped at two reverts - you've gone on far past that. You have also exhibited a profound lack of basic courtesy toward other editors. Please read WP:EW, then read it again. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yoi dare to talk about courtesy after you lied several times and you did it again by claiming I believe I am right, nice assertion there. Please tell me again what I have read, flaws upon flaws from every guideline which results in preference of collectivist opinionism over facts/truth which resulted in July block that I got ovet "unreliable sources" despite using reliable sources. (talk) 5:15, 22 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Energy in North Korea. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Back in July you were blocked per another dispute related to North Korea. If you don't respond this time and offer to change your approach, it seems likely that a longer block will be issued. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Either you didn't bother to do research into that July block to known it was invalid or you are intentionaly that it was invalid as I was blocked for "unreliable sources" which administrator that issued block under that reason and other who contested it have contested reliable source as deemed by wikipedia which is used on several articles. That was the case of their personal opinions disregarding facts and current dispute is no different at its core. (talk) 5:08, 22 October 2017 (GMT 1+)</ref>

If you don't intend to respond at the noticeboard I'm planning to go ahead with a block of your account for the new violation. Your July block was not lifted and I see no indication from any admin that it was erroneous. In fact your unblock request was declined by User:RickinBaltimore. If you want to continue editing we expect to see you are willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So by your statement it is evident you are fine with your fellow administrators issuing blocks to people for using reliable sources that conflicts their interest/agenda. Do you believe 38 North is unreliable source? (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2017 (GMT 1+)

1. You need to make this argument on the talk page, not here
2. If you aren't willing to stop and discuss, you will lose your ability to edit Wikipedia. How does this make any sense for you?

You appear to have some knowledge and you don't seem to be a vandal, but you are editing so stubbornly that you will soon have no credibility at all. The choice is yours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

Mentioning the Daily Kos makes me a CONSERVATIVE? On what fucking planet are you living?

• Why are you accusing me of being liberal? User:Chernobog95 (User talk:Chernobog95) 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to claim to detect some sort of shibboleth, maybe that shibboleth should have some basis in the real world -- like, say, the conservative habit of referring to the "Democrat Party" -- rather than an obviously made-up excuse to dodge having to provide some evidence for your claim? And since YOU'RE the one making the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with something halfway solid: this is Wikipedia 101. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't made the claim unlike you and you ignore the evidence, its pointless to argue with conservatives like you who ignore evidence, don't lie. Or go on, continue to break wikipedia 101 which you just touted you hypocrite with double standards. User:Chernobog95 (User talk:Chernobog95) 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

I noticed that a message you recently left on an editing description directed to Python Dan was unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Kirliator (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hwasong-15, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not resort to blatant lying as that is usual from you from my experience with interacting with you, you can deny and lie like usual and you are free to do so.User:Chernobog95 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Hwasong-15.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 161.6.248.164 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hwasong-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kirliator (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chernobog95. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hwasong-15 and personal attacks

You have been blocked from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. This follows a previous one week block for similar reasons, and an attempt I made earlier on your talk page to reason with you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Media coverage of North Korea. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Media coverage of North Korea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kirliator (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chernobog95 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Media coverage of North Korea. 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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Block extended by six months for engaging in socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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).

Chernobog95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Different person in different country with different initial IP numbers, admit it... You didnt bother to check for details. "path of prospero" (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. See below. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2018 (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.

apparent block evasion

I've blanked a person attack by what appears to be an IP evading the block on this user. Meters (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

So you Meters (talk) wont apologize for your mistake or will you notify NeIN of his mistake? I assume no, prove me wrong if you can.

April 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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).

Chernobog95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your block edit bans are invalid, Meters jumped to conclusion by not checking origin of the IP which you took for granted and too didn't bother to check the IP. Is 79 the same as 188? No. No. No. What is my IP? Starts 188 then something and its not even my own as I dont pay for it, wifi from neighbour and good for banning him too. "path of prospero" (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked on 12/24/2017 for two months. You evaded this block for a week as 188.129.26.144 and NeilN extended the block for six months. You again evaded this block with that IP on 4/24/2018. The block appears to be appropriate. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2018 (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.