Ssyublyn

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Kowtow. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The information you removed is a sourced material. Please do not remove a fact. It would be thought as whitewashing. If you think the fact should be removed, please use the talk page and ask for consensus first. Oda Mari (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See [[1]] Content dispute is not vadalism. Ssyublyn (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kowtow. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. On the article's talk page, I said "add" referenced other cases to the article. I didn't say "replace" with other cases. Why didn't you restore the referenced information you removed from the article? It is clear that you have a pro-Korean point of view and you tried to whitewash the article. Please explain and stop editing with your PoV. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Oda Mari (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing? Japan and Ryukyu kowtow cases are referenced materials. It was neither my original research nor personal analysis. King Injo case was not example of usual example of diplomatic relation. It was wartime event, It was only one time in history. "Happening" should not generalize as encyclopedia article. If you wasny says My edit iS POV pushing, I want ask you, Why, Only Korea cased should include in it? Japan and Ryukyu kowtow cases should not be a OK? Ssyublyn (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Example_cruft#Writing_about_exceptions_to_the_phenomenon

Balancing coverage of a phenomenon with intelligent criticism is a part of creating a neutral encyclopedia. However, counter-examples and criticisms that come from sources that are unreliable or thoroughly discredited should be removed. Wikipedia is not a compilation of every fringe theory or opinion piece about a subject. Treat each perspective on a topic with proportional weight. Ssyublyn (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

KTX

Welcome to Wikipedia. From what spilled over into my personal Talk page, I saw that an edit war developed between you and another user on the KTX page. On the KTX Talk page, I saw that the edit war progressed even though there was discussion on-going and no consensus was rewched between you two. Since your edit was a major deletion (of a whole section), I reverted again, and wrote my own long contribution to the discussion on the Talk page, hoping to clarify the issues at hand in a different way. I request that before consensus is reached, you keep to that discussion, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Korea Train Express

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. Jpatokal (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You confusing 3RR with content dispute. Ssyublyn (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

'...making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period.' Jpatokal (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

KTX

Why did you revert by /until again? The paragraph is not very clearly written, but if I understand what it is saying, then it menas that in that year (or earlier), it will be begun. If it is supposed to mean some-thing else, then the word "implemented" should be changed to, e.g., "used," since implemented has the connotation of "start." 02:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. thanks for your concercn. If you improving its edit. I think It will be Good. I think you and I can co-op developing its edit. Thanks.Ssyublyn (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

The message at Talk:Korea_Train_Express#Comment_-_start_with_copyrights is about copyright problems. It appears that you have been adding text that is directly copied from a copyrighted source eg [2]

If this analysis is incorrect then please accept my apologies. Otherwise please read the message on the talk page. We cannot accept copyrighted material in articles, and if any editor continues to add copyright violations they will certainly be banned or blocked from editing.

On the other hand I have suggested that edits in the short term be restricted to removing copyrighted material, and not remove other non-copyrighted material at the same time. If the article can be cleared of copyrighted material I see no reason not to view this as a good article. It appears to me that the differences between the versions are minor.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - Copyright problems- KTX

I've left a message on the talk page of KTX suggesting that the copyright problems be resolved first, then deal with any editing issues. As such it would be helpful if you could help with this - ie in edits in the next short time period, (until editors agree that there are no copyright issues in the article) should only remove copyright violations, and not any other material at the same time.

It seems to me that the article will be a good one no matter what 'editor version' is used, and that the issues are fairly minor, but have got out of hand.

I've left similar messages on other talk pages. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)