No need to manually change these links. Once your discussion on zhwiki (zh:讨论:朝鲜族#朝鲜族 → 朝鲜民族) is complete, bots here will automatically update the interwiki links. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For reverting your edit to the redirect page. 2help (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 2help (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Abce2|AccessDenied 03:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This revert on Joseon Dynasty was inappropriate; the page is already the focus of a major dispute and mediation is being sought. You shouldn't make contentious reverts without consensus, especially not without even giving a rationale (in your edit summary or elsewhere). Please keep to the discussion at the talk page and do not edit war in the article while discussion is ongoing. If you continue, you may be blocked. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
蘇州宇文宙武 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You said that I reverted another unexplained edit warring, but actually I reverted with the reason: Great? Haha! sovereign state? The name of Joseon was given by China. Don't you see it? And I don't violate 3rr in 24 hours.
Decline reason:
per the comments below. 3RR is not an entitlement; it is clear you were edit warring here, and you were warned to change you behavior, but chose not to. Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:40, 11 July 2009 (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 still can't deny that Joseon is a 藩属 (vassal state) of China.
Even though it's not a full revert, you shouldn't be making controversial wording changes like this when an article is being disputed and is pending mediation. For what it's worth, I prefer the wording you added (not because I have a stake either way in the argument, but just because it reads better), but still I had to revert it because it's not appropriate at this time. No changes like this should be made without suggesting them at the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator warned you twice, so I did not give your 3RR warning. I reported your 5 reverts, 3RR violation. See, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring --Historiographer (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
