To be a IDU member, it should be accepted in the IDU executive meeting. The party which IDU executives do not agree as a Center-right party cannot be the member of IDU. Media is on of just reputations. Thanks.

Hi, this is the int’l relations bureau of the UFP. Please post exact information about UFP. If you have any question please send email international@ufparty.kr or landline +82-2-788-3303. If you wanna keep your post, I need to contact with the desk of Wikipedia. All updating is welcomed but this information about UFP is not your own. I hope your editing has no political purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.165.249.115 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research on the article. Also, your behavior on WP seems quite Pointy. If you keep this behavior on WP you might lose your privilege of editing WP article. Thanks. Jeff6045 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regarding the UFP info. we do not use the term president or parliament leader. Please use official name and information according to the info. of official of the UFP. Please see the website of IDU officially inform the UFP https://www.idu.org/members/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.46.125.253 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post wrong information and check the webpage of IDU and edit the wrong info. yourself. If you are a Korean, please call to UFP and ask to find the right English information.

Why my post is not the sight of neutral point of view? i just move the articles from Korean Wikipedia. It is the problem that the Japanese anti-Juche democratic condeferalist edit this article?
I just want to know the reason.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RSP. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the korean wiki and the source of the party site about Marxism–Leninism. it is reliable source because it is the site of this party. Beowulf2(talk)

Reliable sources are always welcome to wikipedia. However if the sources are not reliable or break WP policy it will be immediately removed. I hope your efforts on WP are not in vain. Thank you. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the IP person from the AfD article and just wanted to say thank you for the effort you take upon yourself to look for sources. And perhaps that i am a little sorry as well for making things difficult. I have no trouble accepting the label, but i just want it to be on solid ground. I mean a pretty big part of the party is described as far-right extremist in sources (der Flügel, the wing in english. German language but google translate should work if you are interested in reading about it). Part of the problem is that, due to Germanys history, there are several specifically german forms of (ultra)nationalism like Völkisch Nationalism or German Nationalism, which are a particular german variety of nationalism/ultranationalism mixed with fascist connotations, racism etc. In other words, those terms would be more likely used in German language accademia and other German language sources than the generic term ultranationalism. And while in essence it is the same or at least very similar... it is not entirely the same. Because Germany had the horrible Nazi regime, there are special names because we sadly went through that awful time. Hope that helps a little to explain. But again, thank you for the effort :) 2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, why such interest in adding vaguely negative labels to their ideology? Heptor (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Heptor:
Firstly I want to thank for your recent edit on the article about Progress party.
Here is my reply to you: My revision is based on reliable sources such as NYT or Euro news. I don't think there is vague or incohernet part of my revision. If you think there is someting wrong about my revision please mention me. Jeff6045 01:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put 'anti-feminism' in the template of this document.

Please supplement your sources as you may know more about the extreme right-wing misogyny of the Liberty Korea Party.--삭은사과 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, it would be nice if you could write down more about the LKP's disgust with sexual minorities and other social minorities.--삭은사과 (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@삭은사과:
Ok. If I find some reliable sources, I will update some contents about LKP's minority hate.12:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Jeff6045[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Party of Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you receive my ping? 108.36.234.84 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Vogone. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Vogone (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vogone: Excuse me. Can I ask you what I have done wrong? Jeff6045 ^{let's talk!} 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare your reaction to the revert of User:Vogone and the reaction to the IP edits. The former (constructive criticism of the changes, constructive editing to the article) is how it should be done, the latter (blanket-undoing of changes, assuming bad faith and expressing that in form of the issued warning) is how it should not be done. :-) --Vogone (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vogone:
Thank for your advice. I'll try to have more gentle attitude on WP. Jeff6045 ^{let's talk!}

Hi Regarding the UFP info. we do not use the term president or parliament leader. Please use official name and information according to the info. of official of the UFP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.46.125.253 (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the CDPJ is by no means a 'left-wing' party. You seem to be interested in various political parties in the world. Can you participate in the talk?--삭은사과 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A debate was held over whether or not the party was a Conservative Liberal. Please participate. Thank you.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to participate in the Liberty Korea Party's debate on changing the party's name. --삭은사과 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a debate about Komeito's political position. Are you willing to participate in that 'Talk' by any chance? I think you can mediate or give a good opinion on this part! --삭은사과 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I'd like to discuss a bit instead of starting an edit war. To respond to your claim about Ciudadanos, I'd bring up the fact that its platform used to offer "a mix of social-democratic and liberal-progressive positions", as the article says. (Obviously, Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source, but this claim is cited in the article). Regarding the Liberal Party of Canada and the Mouvement Réformateur, I'd say that both of these parties have factions that represent different types of liberalism. Some of the provincial parties with members who would also be members of the federal Liberal Party are considered center-right in their respective provinces, implying classical-liberal or even conservative-liberal positions. Additionally, provincial sections of the Liberal Party may be fiscally conservative, so even though the federal party as a whole is social-liberal, the party has factions representing different variants of liberalism, allowing "liberalism" to be listed to include the overall big-tent nature of the party. In the case of the Mouvement Réformateur, the party is characterized by both social-liberal and conservative-liberal factions, so both of these are listed along with the more-inclusive term "liberalism". I hope this helps. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezhao02: If you have dispute about my edit on Progressive Slovakia please open the discussion on the talk page of the article. (So other users can reveal their opinion) Also Your inputs about the faction of the parties that I mentioned is your own opinion. Please give some reliable sources that could support your claim. In addition in article about Democratic Progressive Party the party has both liberalism and social liberalism in its ideology, despite the fact that the party is not considered to include classical liberal or conservative liberal as a faction.
Thank you for reading and always feel free to ask if you have doubt of my input. Jeff6045 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I summarized your argument well on Talk:Progressive Slovakia? Is there anything you want to add? Ezhao02 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reasoning for reverting my edit. "Original research" is unfounded. 114.46.76.137 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff6045 Hi Jeff,

I just read the article and was really perplexed, because there are missing sources for the following claimes which I find kind of offensive if you can not back them up:

1.) In Europe, the COVID-19 symptoms were similar to the flu, so it was thought that even if no confirmed patients were disclosed in public, it was possible to avoid accountability for the failure of quarantine in the future.

2) Germany has a medical infrastructure capable of testing 16,000 people per day, but was reluctant to conduct large-scale COVID-19 testing. Concern about political and diplomatic burdens arising from the potential emergence of many confirmed cases was mentioned as drawbacks for massive testing.

The cited sources do not say anything about these claims.

Proof them or delete them.

Kind regards

Tim

Thank for your recent contributions on article about 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea. I had misunderstood your edit as a disruptive behavior, my apology on this. However I want to advice you that when you make edit on WP, please give more specific description about your revision, or else other users may misinterpret you edit as vandalism. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ilbe Storehouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

→== March 2020 == Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E208:5D02:0:0:1181:90A4 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please ip user refrain yourself from making unconstructive edits on WP. Please keep natural point of view. Jeff6045 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2020 Coronavirus pandemic in South Korea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E149:8F7A:0:0:2547:60A5 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff6045 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Hello, I'm 2001:2D8:E14A:90EA:0:0:35A0:A0A1. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 2001:2D8:E14A:90EA:0:0:35A0:A0A1. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

Avoiding incivility[edit]

Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes.

Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message. Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully. Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over. (See Editing under the influence and No angry mastodons) Take a Real-Life check. Disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough; many people can just brush things off. To get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?" If you would find that unacceptable, then do not say it. And, if you have already said it, strike it and apologise. Be professional. Just because we are online and unpaid does not mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office are not supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something is worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. Nor are volunteers working at the animal rescue centre allowed to start screaming at each other over who left ferrets in the filing cabinet or the corn snake in the cutlery drawer. In fact, there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling; the same principle applies here.Avoid name-calling. Someone may very well be an idiot, but telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them. Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping.Be careful with edit summaries. They are relatively short comments and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation.

WP:Dontlikeit

Please do not remove correct information from articles, as you did to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E14A:90EA:0:0:35A0:A0A1 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is 'progressive' ideology in the party, and that content is specified on Korean Wikipedia. Here is the link. https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8D%94%EB%B6%88%EC%96%B4%EB%AF%BC%EC%A3%BC%EB%8B%B9

And also they erased the political position.--Lovey Derby (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovey Derby: English Wikipedia has no relation to Korean Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Please see the WP:RSP. Jeff6045 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. How is it that my edit is original research? I cited several academic books and peer-reviewed journals. These are upper-tier reliable sources in comparison to news articles that were originally used. These reliable sources define the Chosun Ilbo as a conservative newspaper. The definition of original research is a new and original idea that did not exist until it is proposed by the person making the original research. The concept of the Chosun Ilbo as a conservative newspaper is not a new and original idea that I came up with. It is already stated in the sources I've cited. Res Iudicata (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Res Iudicata (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Res Iudicata (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff6045: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeryGoodBoy. Jerm (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Future_Party#Ideologies_not_based_on_reliable_sources

Could you participate in this debate? I think you know Korean politics better than I do.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are questioning the description of national conservatism in UFP documents. I'd like you to participate in 'talk' about this.--삭은사과 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_of_Korea#social_conservatism

You are the first person to add social conservatism in the Democratic Party of Korea document, so I would like you to participate in Talk.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A brief, passing mention in one or two sources (which do not make any mention to it being its current ideology) is not a "description". The overwhelming majority of sources does not describe the party as "democratic socialist". You should revert your edit and seek a consensus for them (also, if you are the same person as the IPs, you should edit while logged on instead of editing from different accounts). Impru20^talk 08:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Democratic Party of Korea. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Please discuss the matter with other editors on the article’s talk page and try and reach a consensus before changing anything. I have restored the page to the version before the edit waring began by multiple editors with the exception of information which doesn't appear to be disputed, such as the party's change in leadership. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the editorial war. You use Talk. (However, I am personally busy with my work, so I will reply again tomorrow.) Mureungdowon (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DPK's "Progressivism" breaks the long-held consensus. (Economic)"Populism" and (social)"Progressivism" are two completely different issues. I will ask for full protection of the article, restoration to the content of the article before you edit it.--Mureungdowon (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing ideology like a political position. Your editing is devastating. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I suggest removing "liberalism" and "progressivism" from the infobox, leaving only "social liberalism". There is no agreement on "progressivism", and I do not agree at all. Mureungdowon (talk)

You probably define the party's ideology as "progressivism" because the new party leader, Lee Jae-myung, is a leftist within the DPK. BUT Lee Jae-myung is the economic left, not the cultural left. Nor did we change the ideology and political position of the British Labour Party when there was a leftist leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The party's ideology and political position cannot be defined as an individual leader, ignoring the party's long history. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of an editorial dispute, it is necessary to describe it as a content before the dispute arises.

I suggest removing the political position of the article. You think PPP is a "Centre-right" but I don't agree, and Talk shows that there are quite a few people who don't agree other than me. --Mureungdowon (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at People Power Party (South Korea). Mureungdowon (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no agreement among users that PPP was a center-right party. On the other hand, all the editors who participated in Talk except you said that the political position of the PPP is right-wing and more conservative than the LDP. Stop the editorial war. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss PPP's political position please use talk page at PPP article. Jeff6045 (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at People Power Party (South Korea). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jeff6045 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I regret my behavior for encouraging edit war. It's not what I intended. I felt that consensus was needed on the political spectrum of the party, so I reversed the edit that changed the political spectrum without discussion. But in the process of insisting on it, I seem to have been involved in an editorial war without realizing it. I sincerely apologize for my inappropriate behavior. Thanks for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The block already timed out. In the future, try dispute resolution. It is difficult to leave an article in what you believe to be an incorrect state, so we all end up getting a little carried away sometimes. Dispute resolution is how you're supposed to solve this stuff, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of warning about edit warring, so I am disinclined to unblock you at present. Please describe the things you should do to avoid edit warring. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra, Sorry for the late reply. I will move away from the attitude that only my editing is correct, and be open to other people's editing. Also to avoid edit war I'll be civil to other users and follow the three-revert rule. Thanks for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mureungdowon reported by User:Maddy from Celeste (Result: ). Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will be more careful with my edits in the future. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Trumpism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have I been banned due to this edit?[1] Jeff6045 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are just blocked from editing for 1 week. After that time, your account will be unlocked and you will be able to edit freely again. I'd suggest next time you see a situation like this, you just step back and inform an admin that another editor is edit warring, rather than continuing to edit & getting locked out again. Next time, it will likely be for longer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]