User talk:Wfumie

Liancourt Rocks
Could you please explain on Talk:Liancourt Rocks why you reverted my edit? Your version focuses too much on a single point (the ICJ), and claims without evidence that both country's claims go back hundreds of years. Your version doesn't adequately summarize the Liancourt Rocks dispute article, which is what that section would do. If I don't here from you in a few days, I'll put back in my revised version, because yours definitely seems wrong to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Hello. Thanks for your message. I know the South Korea claimed their sovereignty over the islets according to some old documents which they claimed written several hundred years ago. But, like you said, Japanese government did not do it, so I changed the edit. Thanks for your point-out.Wfumie (talk) 18 August 2012 (UTC) -- Your edits at Liancourt Rocks have the appearance of being heavily tendentious; moreover, many of them are in poor English. Please propose your changes on the talk page first to allow discussion and corrections before editing the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, I don't think my edit at Liancourt Rocks has any tendency. Also I don't think my English is poor nor I don't know your English is very good, so please do not write any stupid rude message again. Wfumie (talk) 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for disruptive editing at Liancourt Rocks. 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 adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think the user deserves to be blocked. I also don't think the user's edit was tendentious or disruptive as Future Perfect at Sunrise pointed out. The most of the edits by the user except the last six edits are still remain in the article without being reverted. I don't think even the last six edits are so contentious to be reverted. Also, there is no prior warning of block before this block at all. I think this three day block is quite harsh for the first time. Since it is almost 1day and 15 hour since the user was blocked, I think it is the time to unblock the user. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Request

 * Turnong off as block appears to have expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

block
I think if they are to be blocked for 3 days for a first offense at a minimum it needs listing on the arbcom sanctions page. I'm also uncomfortable with the blocking admin being a regular contributor to the page. Secretlondon (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)