User talk:Bablos939

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bablos939! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! –DMartin 02:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Prostitution in Nepal has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bablos939! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Prostitution in Sri Lanka 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. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bablos939, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see WP:ANI § Repeated racism against ethnic Chinese. This notification was made on behalf of 70.77.154.228. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Interracial marriage has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Please do not be so aggressive in edit summaries. If you believe someone is a sockpuppet, simply report them, there is no need to confront them directly. –DMartin 23:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.I'll be more careful from now on.Bablos939 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop opening sockpuppet investigations. We welcome all users, even new ones like yourself, to participate in all aspects of building the encyclopedia. However, SPI is a highly technical area which requires substantial experience to be effective. What you are doing now is just disruptive. Thanks for your understanding. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bablos939, please read this -----> https://i.ibb.co/hcwb2Q2/122-1024x1024-8-Copy.jpg

Do not drag all Koreans down and ashame them. My Korean not good but please read it.

I'm here to deliever a message. I'm also against racism of all sorts and especially against Chinese people that Bablos939 had been doing. Please watch this video to defend -----> https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0i-LjGslyU ( WATCH IT ) Please go to this email address, he will give you all the info, references you need to edit in wikipedia --------> yorkshire123dragonxz@gmail.com

Please reconsider49.207.211.25 (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in a sock doll like you. Don't spoil Wikipedia with false information.

I was fed up with your madness, so I looked for the cause. https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-trafficking-in-persons-report-2/republic-of-korea/ Numerous Chinese women have been sold to Korean men and U.S. soldiers. http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2006-09-13/112610009032s.shtml According to the data, many Chinese women seem to prefer Korean men. https://www.secretchina.com/news/gb/2011/12/07/432007.html http://m.90hc.com/shehui/zhenqing/165682.html Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Chinese women are marrying Korean men. https://news.sina.com.tw/books/history/barticle/7411-2.html Mongolians owned most of the Chinese women.

Maybe you are jealous of Korea, Mongolia for this reason. but I have no interest in Korea or Mongolia that you hate. I'm not interested in your fight. If you have any objections, go to the Chinese media or the Korean people and complain.Don't ever talk to me again.Bablos939 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan, as I noted with your previous SPI reports, what you're doing is not useful. Please do not file any more SPIs. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked for being disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bablos939, its Toby Mitches here, I just wanted to say, I am so happy to see you be more respectful, more peaceful and more formal in your responses. I have also seen you going back to edit your comments to be better, which I highly encourage! The best way to debate people on wiki is to be civil. With that being said, you still have some edits which you can fix, I think you should go back to these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, try make them more civil/respectful, good luck and keep up the good work. -- Toby Mitches (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice.Bablos939 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Iranians in China, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

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).

Bablos939 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for destructive behavior. But I wasn't aiming for vandalism. The part I deleted was the contribution of the blocked user. This document has been in violation of regulations for a long time. So I asked another manager about my mistake before being blocked. [[1]] I apologize for my mistake. But it wasn't intentional and there was a reason. I'll study the rules in more detail. thank you Bablos939 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block appears to have expired. SQL^{Query me!} 20:31, 16 October 2020 (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 have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bablos939. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bablos939 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I can't hide my embarrassment. I don't have another account and I don't know him at all.

Background

Vamlos (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (1) I discuss to erase wrong and false data about Chinese intermarrige. (2) Sock doll is attacking me.((He shows great obsession with Korea in this process.also he make racist comments.) (3) He is eventually blocked. (4) Then the IP address appears and attacking me. (5) IP is eventually blocked. (6) Single-purpose ID reappears... (Endless loop..) Vamlos is an obvious sock doll and single-purpose account. He even continued to make racist comments. But RoySmith is blocking me and protecting Vamlos.

Skyslandscanner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Bablos939 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

(A) I have never used another account. It's fully proven.

1. Skyslandscanner's contribution and mine are completely irrelevant. He is interested in Korea like Vamlos , but I am not interested at all. Rather he is more like a vamlos. He never helped me when I was attacked or debated in talk page.

2. EX)[[2]] , I often participated in discussions in the past, but the results were not good for me. But even then I never got help from another account. If I had intended to use another account, I would have used it then. Those who opposed my opinion at that time were very skillful user. I had no choice but to withdraw my opinion. However, Vamlos is seriously violating regulations(WP:RS,WP:NPOV..) which is why he is criticized by many users. Are those many users my other account?

3. Many users suspected Vamlos as a sock doll and supported me in the debate. I didn't need any additional help. What do I use another account to get?

4. I'm willing to take a technical test with confidence. RoySmith regarded everyone who investigated Vamlos as me. It's his obvious fallacy.

(B) RoySmith is not authorizing an inspection of Vamlos too much. According to his logic, Vamlos' behavior is perfectly consistent with his previous sock dolls. He ignored my request unconditionally. I'm not saying this simply because I'm upset. [[3]] [[4]] Two highly skilled users are also strongly suspicious. I know Wikipedia is not always consistent. But this is too much. A single purpose account is still active and I'm blocked. I'm not asking you to block Vamlos here, I'm talking about bias. It comes to the conclusion that everyone who requests an investigation into vamlo is my dolls by false logic.....

Conclusion I have no resemblance to Skyslandscanner. My blocking is due to errors, not objective examinations. I had no reason to use another account.I had nothing to gain from using another account.

Decline reason:

"Sock doll"? Are you using Google Translate? Anyway, please see WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2020 (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.