User talk:AmericanExpat

AmericanExpat, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AmericanExpat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Racism in South 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 article's 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. Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim1138 I did make all of the proposed changes on the talk page. You guys didn't respond. That isn't my problem. The article is asinine with inaccuracis, bias and bad citations. And it's also written like a middle school project. I am going to fix those issues.

I suggest that you have a little more respect for Wikipedia, Wikipedia policies and other editors. Just because you make a proposal, doesn't not mean there is a time limit for people to respond. We don't live online 24/7. The burden in yours to gain consensus, silence does not equal consensus. If your opinion is that the article has issues, it's your opinion, it obviously isn't an opinion shared by the numerous editors who have years of experience editing wikipedia. Stop edit warring, start listening. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spacecowboy420Really? You use "fucking" and you think I should have more respect?

This article is asinine. I have enumerated all of the asininities. Just because there are people here who have some personal beef with some experience in Korea doesn't mean your concensus on asininity should prevail.

So, your personal opinions on the subject are more important than Wikipedia rules regarding consensus and edit warring? Nice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will note, I have listed no opinions in the introduction, which is my only edit so far. It has fact and statistics and no more. Writing, "Racism in South Korea is widespread and overt in nature, stemming from the country's commonly held belief that Koreans are a 'pure-blooded race' that have been homogeneous throughout history," and "citing" it with an article about the prevalence of bars barring foreigners' patronage is obviously an OPINION. Opinions are prohibited on Wikipedia.

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:AmericanExpat reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: ). Thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

See wp:no personal attacks and wp:civility I noticed that you made a comment on the page wp:ANI/3RR that didn't seem very civil. This is not the first time and was noted on the WP:ANI/3RR page. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Consider this a warning. Jim1138 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Racism in South Korea. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not particularly bothered by the block. I am very concerned, however, as to how to go about wrestling the article in question from the three or four editors who seem bent on using the article as a tool for personal vendetta.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral and objective reference material. I cannot see how the administrators think the page is neutral and objective.

I had, in addition, made suggestions for edit. No one commented on any of the points except to make a sock puppetry accusation but when after nearly a week I implemented the changes, they came out of the woodwork to claim there is no time limit for a consensus. Then they each took a turn so that none did more than three reverts. I guess using that technique, they could just keep postponing consensus indefinitely.

I know Wikipedia takes down pages all the time for impartiality. Can someone explain how the article is allowed to exist in its current state? How is an article allowed to claim "Racism in South Korea is widespread and overt in nature, stemming from the country's commonly held belief that Koreans are a "pure-blooded race" that have been homogeneous throughout history.[5][6][7] South Korean racism comes in a variety of different forms, such as nationalistic xenophobia, ethnic prejudices, and discrimination against persons on the basis of their skin color and ancestry.[8][9]" and state complete lies such as The heavily widespread nature of racism in South Korea has even led to the United Nations and the United States expressing concern over the matter. That latter statement regarding the US is completely false.

I have no doubt that I will never reach a reasonable consensus with the editors. The last AfD was rejected in favor of "make changes if necessary but keep." But basically, there has been zero changes. Is the only way to get that page cleaned up is to recruit five editors on my own who'll agree with me?

The page apparently has been in current state for a number of years. I would truly like to know how to go about resolving this issue.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. I suggest you read our policy on dispute resolution. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:09, 15 June 2016 (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.