Tnaniua

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Developed country appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not write a false edit summary. I could not find any consensus on the talk page. So please do not revert edits any more until you find consensus among other editors. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If we have a dispute, we must go back before the dispute. We removed a CIA's DC list (13:08, 6 March 2009, with everybody agreed) but Turkish people start doing vandalism (08:19, 13 March 2009), and CIA's DC list is nonsense, (It say, - have a per capita GDP in excess of $10,000 countries are developed. -) For example, a CIA's DC list are not included Singapore, but Singapore is more developed (CIA's POV -- according to CIA, per capita GDP in excess of $10,000 countries are developed. -- and common sense) than Japan or Turkey.(-Singapore has over 53,000 GDP per capita and really clean country. etc.) --Tnaniua (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. The CIA list was restored on March 14 by, as far as I understand, this CIA talk. You removed the list again on March 17 and by repeating it, you were blocked for the second time with the same article. You wrote that you were never going to make edit war and would try to talk on March 24. But the last time you used the talk page was March 21 and you've been still removing the list. I think what you are doing is a PoV pushing and engaging in an edit war. Could you please explain? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

GINI Map

Please stop removing the GINI map from articles. Your reasoning is not valid; the map meets all the necessary requirements as long as it's made clear what the source is. If you feel there is a better source for GINI values, you can make a map using that data and list it alongside the UN map so people can compare them and make up their own mind. Sbw01f (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

CPOV?

Hey Tnaniua, I'm not sure what you meant by your edit summary in this revert, I assume it was a typo. But I'd just like to clarify why I restored the other version of the intro, instead of the one you reverted to. As you can see, the content of both versions is pretty much the same...the difference is that the version you reverted to is full of sentence fragments. If there's something in this version that you think should be kept, it would be better just to fix it manually, rather than reverting (that way you can preserve both the better grammar of the other version, and the formatting, disambiguation, etc., that would be undone otherwise). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you've used this edit summary again (diff), and I'm still not sure quite what you mean...Mtd2006 raised an objection against this edit at the talk page, so it would help if you could explain your reasoning. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just concerned about china's northeast project. anyway korea was unified, after North South States Period(balhae and silla). --Tnaniua (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning for your tendentious edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gwanggaeto the Great. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue 06:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who should adhere to use "talk page". Goguryeo is also in you edit warring too.--Caspian blue 06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

June 17 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to developed country, you will be blocked from editing. --Rayesworied (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

just ignore whatever Rayesworied tells you

he is trying to intimidate people who r trying to fix the errors in developed country article. he has done same trick to me but i sent same 'warning' to him. just look at what they are doing to the article. deliberate attempt to get south korea off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkchoi (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Developed country, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop cherry picking. See the article's talk page. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Developed country

If you can find a reliable source which criticizes the report, then please put that into the article, but your personal opinion can't be put there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Developed country. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 24*14 hours. Here are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I agree the reason for block. However, question is why doesn't developed country article go back before fight? there is a clear CONSENSUS to leave out WB IRBD economies[1] and exclude CIA's DC list.[2]

Decline reason:

The role of admins sometimes includes making decisions about user conduct, but generally speaking, excludes deciding article content, which is controlled by the wiki process. After the block expires, I suggest you post on the article talk page, and establish consensus for the changes you want. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Suspected sockpuppet

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tnaniua. Thank you.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tnaniua for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo stealing on Commons

One of the sockpuppets commons:User talk:Pocketchef uploaded a small number of photos stolen from other websites and vandalized Wikipedia with this photos. Please also inform Commons if there is another sockpuppet or just give me a note and I will check the uploads of sockpuppets for possible copyright violations. --Martin H. (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible relation

By the scope of editing - and the pattern of photo stealing on Commons - I see many similarities to another sockpuppet ring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ziggymaster, i.e. User:Lakshmix. --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)