User talk:ThomasPark02

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

† Unblock Appeals (2016)[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Ebonelm (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. This is your final warning before you will be reported to the administrators. Wikipedia is not a place for you to 'promote' photographs that you have taken. Ebonelm (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.  DrKay (talk) 15:24, 17 October 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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not doing inappropriate edits, but some necessary changes. The change of images were changing images to new and better quality pictures.

Decline reason:

Since you never use article talk pages or article summaries, and you never respond to messages on this user talk page, there's no way to know what your reason is for these changes. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:48, 17 October 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.

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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is Thomas Park. I used accounts like Thomas D. Park or Pierre Lam, but it didn't work, so I am back to my original account. Seriously, my edits to Oh Joon, Nick Clegg, Enda Kenny, Martin O'Malley, and others were pretty good. Also, my edits to The Cenotaph (Hong Kong) was not happy for Ebonelm, but I think the photo is much better because it is much newer and much better quality than current photo. That's why I continuously tried to update the photo, but Ebonelm continuously blocked me and I was depressed that's why I made new accounts and edited the article. You administrators are only considering about my negative edits. I made article 'Oh Joon' and developed it. I believe that I can be a good editor again like what I was a few months ago. Please believe me and unblock me. Thank you :)

Decline reason:

You have ignored and removed my recommendations, which I offered in the hope you might amend your request to address the actual reasons for your block. And you show no sign that you will adjust your behaviour in cases when you think you are right. I do not, therefore, think it would be appropriate to unblock you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your benefit and for the benefit of any future reviewing admin, I repeat my recommendations as part of my decline of this request...

The big problem here is that you have not been communicating in any way, and just repeating your changes when they were reverted, and that approach needs to change.

Firstly, you should use an edit summary to explain any change you make.

If your change is reverted and you don't understand why you should ask the editor who reverted you on their talk page.

If you want to re-do a change when it is disputed, you should start a discussion on the article talk page and try to get a consensus (click that link) for your change - if you get a consensus in your favour then you can make your change again, but if not then you must not. The alternative of just repeating the change is considered edit warring and is disruptive, and making new accounts to continue the same behaviour is known as suckpuppetry and is not allowed.

To be unblocked, you would need to make it clear that you understand these problems and that you will in future follow the procedures I have just outlined, and that you will only use one account - and you should please tell us *all* the other accounts you have used.

Finally, I can assure you that "You administrators are only considering about my negative edits" is not true - but we cannot ignore disruption just because you also make good edits, and a block was really the only way to get your attention as you were not communicating and were ignoring warnings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 26 November 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.

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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Boing! said Zebedee, I reviewed your recommendations and deleted, not just ignoring it. I made some appropriate image changes like Enda Kenny, and Nick Clegg, but Ebonelm just deleted my action, which made me an inappropriate Wikipedia user. Also, my edit to The Cenotaph (Hong Kong) was absolutely appropriate, but Ebonelm, DrKay, and others just ignored my appropriate edit and critiqued my photo as 'low quality' photo, which means that they didn't show respect to my edit and just blocked me critiqued me. I am the user who made Oh Joon and developed it. I highly apologise about my edits to the Irish senator articles and British MP articles, but that doesn't mean that they can disrespect me and critique me. I am a citizen like anybody else. I will highly respect the Wikipedia spirit at further edits, so please trust me and unblock me † - Thomas Park

Decline reason:

AsBoing! said Zebedee says your interpretation of reverts as disrespecting you is unfortunate and shows you don't understand the Wikipedia process. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 27 November 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.

  • I'm sorry, but if you see the reverting of your edits as "disrespecting" you, then you really don't understand the way we work here. Anyone has the right to revert any change you make, whether or not you personally think they are right, and the onus is then on you to seek consensus if you want to make the change again - and if you see the reverting of any of your changes as disrespect, then Wikipedia might not be an appropriate environment for you. I urge you to re-examine my recommendations and the policies to which I linked and to consider agreeing to my suggested changes in your approach. Just saying "I will highly respect the Wikipedia spirit at further edits" is unlikely to be sufficient - I expect the next reviewing admin would want to see specific commitments to specific behavioural changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boing! said Zebedee, I appealed to users like Ebonelm, but they just continuously said I make some vandalism edits and just ignore my words. That's why I am frustrated, and keep apologising yo users like you. Now I am having a headache and having pills because of this problem. My acquaintances and some people endorsed me on editing Wikipedia. Images like what I inserted (Now it is gone) for Gapyeong Canada Monument, I actually visited that place and took photos and uploaded on Wikipedia. I know that users can revert inappropriate edits, but the problem is that they are reverting good edits like Gapyeong Canada Monument, Ed Miliband, and Martin O'Malley. I believe that users like you and Ebonelm should check edits like Oh Joon or Nick Clegg and trust me, not just reverting good edits.
  • No, other editors can not only revert edits that *you* think are inappropriate - they can revert just about any edit regardless of what you think of it. It is then up to you to seek consensus to put it back. You talk about "reverting good edits like Gapyeong Canada Monument, Ed Miliband, and Martin O'Malley", but you have not made any edits to those articles from this account. You also ask me to check Oh Joon and Nick Clegg, but I repeat that because you have made good contributions in some articles does not mean we can just trust you that all of your other edits are good too and forbid others from reverting you. It simply does not work like that. If you want to edit here, you must abide by Wikipedia's approach of collaboration, discussion and consensus. You say you "appealed to users like Ebonelm", so a good start would be for you to show us where that discussion is - please give us a link to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you did there was change the photo to a new one, that change was reverted, and you then engaged in edit warring while logged out from a number of different IPs. You then simply instructed Ebonelm that you were right and made an accusation that Ebonelm's reverts were disruptive, while logged out from your blocked account, and you continued the edit war. That *does not* constitute discussion and consensus-seeking, and an editor has every right to refuse to engage with a block-evading sock puppet. Your behaviour on that article and Ebonelm's talk page was unacceptable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boing! said Zebedee I could appeal to Ebonelm by using IP addresses because I was already blocked to edit, so that's why I appealed to him twice and continued the edit war. The reason I mentioned 'disrespecting' is because Ebonelm ignored my second appeal which was really heartbreaking and frustration to me. After the second appeal ignore by Ebonelm, I decided to just revert edit after somebody does an inappropriate edit to an article.
  • Yes, but when blocked you *should not* have been making any edits logged out at all, the only thing you should have been doing was requesting unblock from your account. What you should have done was engage in discussion *before* you got yourself blocked. It is not disrespecting to ignore block-evading edits and comments, it is perfectly proper. All you are doing here is repeating the explanation of the things you did wrong and telling us why you did them, with no apparent understanding of why your behaviour was wrong. What you need to do is be specific about what you did wrong which led to the block and how you would change your approach if unblocked - for example, explain how you should have approached your dispute on The Cenotaph (Hong Kong). Anyway, I think I've given you all the help I can, and if you still don't understand then I really don't think I can explain any more clearly. So I'll leave it to the next reviewing admin now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boing! said Zebedee Thank you for continuous replies I really appreciate it and thank you for the advice that you gave it to me.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have seen lots of edits and changes made by various users and administrators. I believe I am ready to follow Wikipedia rules and get out from vandalism. I have read lots of comments by Ebonelm, DrKay, Boing! said Zebedee, and others had mentioned and commented it, the edits can be reverted. I would continuously read talk pages and make appropriate changes for both image and information. I would not like to resign as a Wikipedia user now. I want to start a new editing as a Wikipedia user. Like my edits to Nick Clegg, and Enda Kenny, I will make appropriate edits, not vandalism edits. Please trust me and unblock me. Please give me one more chance.

Accept reason:

I am going to give you the chance to redeem yourself. But please remember that if you return to the same behavior (such as switching portrait shots for long-distance shots in biographical infoboxes, or continuing to revert without explanation) then the block will be reinstated. DrKay (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DrKay ThomasPark02's first four edits all disruptive again. Changing the order of the candidates in the Richmond, and Seaford and Sleaford and North Hykeham by-elections from alphabetical order as is consensus (see here and here), inserting distance shots into the Martin O'Malley infobox despite being expressely warned not to do this (see here) and reinstating his own lower quality images into Gapyeong Canada Monument (see here). Clearly ThomasPark02 has learnt nothing from the warnings he has been given! Ebonelm (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across ThomasPark02's edit-warring on my watchlist a few times (although he's usually been reverted/reported by other users before I've intervened), which led me to his sockpuppet investigation page. Based on some of his responses, he's at best very incompetent and at worst simply trolling, and I would lean towards the latter. I don't think other editors should have to continually waste their time on his behaviour, so I would suggest some sort of ban is in order. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ebonelm, I am sick and tired about your disturbing messages. My edits to candidates in the Richmond, and Seaford and Sleaford and North Hykeham by-elections are changed by parties which has more seats in the parliament, so readers can notice how famous they are and future editor can type in votes and percentage more easily. My edit to Martin O'Malley was made because the image was too old and low quality, so I made a change. For Gapyeong Canada Monument, I actually visited the monument and took images and uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. These image changes were change from low quality and old photos to new ones. For The Cenotaph (Hong Kong), I left a message on talk page, so please review.

@Boing! said Zebedee ThomasPark02 has done it again. On declared monuments of Hong Kong he has once again tried to reinstate an image which is the reason why he was blocked and opened a number of sockpuppet accounts in the first place. Here he has tried to be extra sneaky by making the edit, undoing it, and then undoing it again to reinstate his first edit. See (1, 2, 3). Not to mention a number of other contentious edits to pages such as Edward Heath where he has been warned not to try and unilaterally change images before. ThomasPark02 is just mucking about trying to disrupt Wikipedia. WP:GOODFAITH can no longer be assumed. Ebonelm (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting this recent edit in which he made another disingenuous "apology" and claimed he would stop edit-warring, which was followed shortly after by the edits noted above. I think it's pretty clear at this point that he's just here to play games. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

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.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm really sorry it has come to this, because I had thought that you understood the problems and were going to adjust your behaviour and seek consensus when your changes were reverted (and the discussion you started at Talk:The Cenotaph (Hong Kong) made me feel optimistic). Unfortunately, you have continued to edit war to put your own photographs into Wikipedia articles, despite lengthy and multiple attempts to get you to understand that that is not a permitted approach to editing. I have no doubt of your good will and I'm sure you only want to improve our articles, but you cannot be allowed to continue ignoring Wikipedia's consensus-based approach to disputes while repeatedly trying to force in your desired changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 27 November 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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee, this is Thomas Park. This time, I cannot understand why did you blocked me. First of all, for edit war, Ebonelm started this time by reverting my edits (image change), which were quite useful. When an user agreed to my edit, Ebonelm continuously tried to brainwash that user and that user finally changed his mind, which happened in talk page of Sir Edward Heath! I believe that Ebonelm has some kind of hostility on me and continuously making me blocked by administrators like you. I think you should unblock me because during the unblock, like you had seen, I used talk paged a lot, and not made edits like what I previously made. I think Ebonelm should get blocked, not me.

Decline reason:

Whatever your personal opinion may be, it is you who are at fault here. Unless you can understand this and commit to not continuing the behavior which has got you blocked I see little prospect of an unblock. I also note that you have used sockpuppets while blocked, and although this has not featured in the reasoning for your block I want you to appreciate that editing either from an alternative account or from an IP while blocked is an offence. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:42, 28 November 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.

  • You made this image change on Oct 17, which was reverted. Then, after all the warnings above and a block for your edit warring over images, plus explanations of why you must seek consensus and not edit war, and after your block was lifted on your promise that you would change your behaviour, you made the same image change again on 27 November (yesterday) without first gaining consensus. You did start a discussion on the talk page, but just starting a discussion is not sufficient to justify re-making your disputed change - you must wait for consensus. Despite all that, I'd like to see you unblocked and return to editing, and I had already planned some conditions under which I would unblock you myself - but I won't even consider it while you are making attacks on other editors in your unblock request, and I doubt anyone else will either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 28 November 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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, this is Thomas Park. I noticed that you blocked me again. First, edit war is true, but I would like to explain it. I made some edits without using talk page, which made you frustrated and consider as vandalism and edit war. I apologise if that distracted you. Second, for changing behaviour, I am changing. I just need more time to get used to productive edits. As a user who has access to protected articles, I would like to say that I am trying to follow Wikipedia rules, but if administrators keep block me, I cannot develop as a good user and I won't be able to make good edits anymore in Wikipedia. It is very disappointing because I thought you are going to give me chance to reform, but you just destroyed the chance. I think it will be better if you give me chance to develop. Thank you :)

Decline reason:

You were given a chance to change / develop. You were not given a pass to continue edit warring. You agreed that you would change your behavior - and broke that agreement. I would suggest the Standard offer. SQLQuery me! 02:50, 3 December 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.

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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee and DrKay, this is Thomas Park. I recently didn't do some edits to think about what I did wrong. Also, my social studies teacher critiqued me about editing on Wikipedia. I felt really bad and sad because of it and I thought of my recent edits and saw if it was vandalism edit or not. First, for Edward Heath, Ebonelm said the image should be taken when Sir Edward Heath was in office, but when I read Tony Blair, the image was taken after Blair left the office. I am very suspicious why only my edits are suspected wrong. Second, my good edits were also reverted by Ebonelm. According to The Independent, Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson resigned on 30 October 2016, but Ebonelm just ignored it and reverted the edit. I think you should unblock me, so I can revert those inappropriate reverts made by Ebonelm and make some better edits.

Decline reason:

This request gives the definite impression that you have failed to accept that your behavior is inappropriate. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:35, 8 December 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.

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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Anthony Bradbury Boing! said Zebedee and DrKay this is Thomas Park. I know that you guys hate me because I continuously ask for unblock. You guys think I am a bad user and continuously making vandalism edits. However, the truth is that I am trying to put more accurate information for Wikipedia, but since you guys are continuously blocking me, I cannot edit it. For example, for article Park Jie-won, Park's term ended on 5 December 2016, but it says he is incumbent interim leader. The leadership was succeeded to Kim Dong-chul. For image changes that you guys and Ebonelm is saying inappropriate is actually not inappropriate. When you see the third images below, these images didn't affected the article that much and actually, according to users' comments, these images are all appropriate for the articles. For example Ebonelm said the portrait should be taken when the person was in the office, but in article Tony Blair, the image was taken after he left the office. I think Wikipedia is trying to revert every edits including appropriate edits without checking because they think all of my informations are bad, so please let me edit again leave message on my talk page when you have problem or complain to me.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand that your method of editing Wikipedia is the reason why your blocked. You should establish consensus for your changes, and not revert war. Although an unblock now doesn't look possible a Standard Offer approach could be taken in your case. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 10 December 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.

It's not that anybody hates you, it's that you are blatantly and repeatedly breaking some of Wikipedia's core rules. And you really do not seem to understand what you should be doing here.

You should not be arguing about the images here on this talk page. You have been told multiple times that the way to resolve disagreements about images is on the talk pages of the relevant article pages and await consensus. Here, you should only be addressing the behaviour that led to your block, not the images themselves. And that behaviour has been to edit war over your preferred images and over other changes, even after having had one block lifted.

In addition, you have been creating obvious sock puppets as shown at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasPark02, and using those to continue with your disputed changes. That is also something you will need to address if you are to stand any chance of being unblocked.

At this point, I think the best you can hope for now would be the WP:STANDARDOFFER, in which you stay away for at least six months with no socking or block evasion, and then make a request that shows you really do understand the problems and convinces a reviewing admin that they will not be repeated. There's no guarantee you will be unblocked even then, but I think it really is your only realistic chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 9 December 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).

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, administrators including Boing! said Zebedee, PhilKnight, Anthony Bradbury, and DrKay, this is Thomas Park again. Last time, Boing! said Zebedee mentioned that I created some sock puppets. Sock puppetry is a hoax this time. When I was regretting my actions in Wikipedia, somebody mentioned me on Wikipedia, who was Christian Leguerrier. I don't know who Christian was, but I was quite sure that Christian is trying to nominate an article. Also, in ThomasPark02 SPI case, some accounts were mentioned. Those accounts were not controlled by me. You administrators are trying to keep block me because there is two letters 'TP' inside the username? That's wildly disrespectful for me because you are trying to make all my sock puppets, even they are not mine

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. You were evading your block by editing without logging in 90 minutes before you posted this request. Talk page access revokied; at this point, you're just wasting our time. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 07:57, 11 December 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.

May 2016[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! 220 of Borg 20:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • For continuing your battleground and edit warring approach as soon as you were unblocked, I could have instantly blocked you again. I will give you one last chance, but if I see one more example of edit warring I will re-impose your block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cenotaph has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • For help, take a look at the introduction.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cenotaph was changed by ThomasPark02 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864793 on 2016-06-19T17:22:25+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Harold Wilson
added a link pointing to George Brown
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury
added a link pointing to Stamford

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bangbae Phantoms[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello. A tag has been placed on Bangbae Phantoms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. noq (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Neve–selbert 10:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Gordon Brown, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Nevé–selbert 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Cameron. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

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. Please use an edit summary more frequently in future. See H:FIES, for further details as to why. --Nevé–selbert 19:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive table linking[edit]

Can you please stop linking the already linked names in the infoboxes of articles such as John Major and Gordon Brown. There is no need to link those names below in the infobox, the reason as to why they are unlinked is due to the fact that they are already linked further above inside the infobox. I would also refer you to WP:DUPLINK. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 16:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alexander Grantham
added a link pointing to Administrator
Bob Hawke
added a link pointing to Brian Howe
David Trench
added a link pointing to Administrator
Mark Aitchison Young
added a link pointing to Administrator
Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch
added a link pointing to Administrator
Paul Keating
added a link pointing to Brian Howe
Robert Black (colonial administrator)
added a link pointing to Administrator
William McMahon
added a link pointing to Hugh Robertson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Zimmerman (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Member. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lee Hsin[edit]

The article Lee Hsin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. JTtheOG (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Hsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image changes[edit]

Hi ThomasPark02. I noticed that you have been making many edits to infoboxes recently which have not been constructive. Your edits to Gary Johnson for example removed an image on which there was an established (and hard fought) consensus, changing images of presidential candidates is nearly always controversial and should be dealt with at the talk page. Similarly your edit to David Cameron removed a consensus image, on Wikipedia we tend to use official images if possible, and the one you replaced it with was low quality and gave undue weight to his resignation. Furthermore, your edit to William Hague removed a good quality headshot and replaced it with a wide-angle shot in which made it barely possible to see his face which is not acceptable for a main infobox image. Please stop making these edits they go against established consensus. Some of your edits, such as the one you made to Nick Clegg have been positive introducing a photo of Clegg during his time of office, though it is worth noting that it was still nearly reverted as it was a lower quality image, the only reason it was kept was because the other one was 7 years out of date. Ebonelm (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

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. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, ThomasPark02. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ThomasPark02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17119 was submitted on Dec 14, 2016 11:49:59. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasPark02, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—MelbourneStar☆talk 13:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThomasPark02&oldid=1091543161"