User talk:SwordDance108

August 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. 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:. MER-C 11:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

would you add some clarity by explaining your earlier assertion in this edit that seems to say 'kuk' and 'kyeok' are equivalent? I don't want a content dispute to ensue on this talk page, just interested in your thoughts.

SwordDance108, you may want to revise your unblock appeal. You have not explained your understanding of why you were blocked and what you intend to do in the future, instead you have insisted you were right and focused on content and what others have done. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I made a translation mistake when I attempted to make an article for Gjogsul/North Korean Army style. The subject arose when I found out about it in the Japanese Fushin-sen entry. I am not good at Korean and the translation machine I used, translated/romanized either 격 or 撃 as Kuk and I took that as the correct translation. I was further affired in this belief with the Frank Pelny's Gjog sounding close enough to Kuk and there being so many/overwhelming ways to romanize Korean and/or Chinese-to-Korean. Since the original entry was written in such promotional tone - and me being under impression that Kuk Sul Do was the correct name for Gjogsul - I figured to create a new entry for "the other Kuk Sul", seeing Gjogsul would be higher priority than what was originally described in Kuk Sul Do. So I moved the old Kuk Sul Do information to Kuk Sul Do (Choon Sik Yang), but User:Liz deleted the page, as the original article was written in very promotional tone. It wasn't until user 99.45.148.91 noted that Kuk Sul Do for 격술도 / 撃術道 was wrong - providing detailed reasons why, which I copy-pasted as reason for moving the page and renaming the entry to Kyeok Sul Do. TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

. I'm supposed to explain why I was blocked and apologize? I apologize for any policy I've broken--I hold no desire to be a malicious editor. But explain?

There was no explanation given for why I'm somehow a spam account. I was just declared as such and perma-banned over a single edit, apparently. I've read the spam page, and I don't understand how I violate it. It seems that you decry me as insisting myself to be right, although I wrote "it's possible there's something I'm unaware of". I even agree that the page, as it was, needed a lot of work. Maybe it doesn't even meet notability guidelines, and shouldn't be a page. I believe it does, but maybe others don't feel the same.

If, while attempting to restore a page in good faith, I am banned, is it not a logical recourse to attempt to explain and justify why I restored the page in the first place? It's not like I've been told what my crime is. Is it so criminal, in your eyes, to defend oneself when, to the best of one's knowledge, one's actions ought to have been acceptable? SwordDance108 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I could have declined your unblock appeal, but instead I just offered advice, which is apparently unwelcome, so this will be my last comment on your talk page. I'm saying that your appeal will be declined unless you explain your understanding of why you were blocked and what you intend to do if unblocked. Apparently you were promoting a style of martial art with a registered trademark, as far as I can tell. If you have a question about it, then ping the blocking admin. I'll do it for you: . OK? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it. Edit warring to include obvious advertising. MER-C 09:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)