User talk:Melonbarmonster2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:12, 20 January 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Melonbarmonster2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful^{[citation needed]}:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Greetings from WikiProject Korea!

Thank you for your recent contributions to Korean tea. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Caspian blue (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User name

Are you really Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs)?--Caspian blue (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours

Due to edit warring on Taekwondo I have blocked you for 48 hours (and separately, Badagnani for the same thing, you were both in the wrong).

You know better than to do this. Talk pages are there for this purpose. Multiple massive reverts like that without sufficient talk page cooperation is unacceptable behavior.

I also have protected the page for a week. When your block ends, please work this out on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried many, many times to get an explanation from Badagnani for his reversions. When the other party is unwilling to even explain what he disagrees with or even why, it's hard to "work" it out in the talk page. Badagnani's intent was to not engage in a discussion and blindly claim no consensus so that he was block edits to the page. I wish you had looked at the disagreement and the substantive issues behind my edits more closely.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Korean cuisine. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog meat info in progress

Sandbox for myself:

dog meat is a part of the very interesting and colorful aspect of Korean cuisine and culture of what I'll call "medicinal" foods, for the lack of a better term. This is a niche of Korean culture and food culture that is seen as a quack/quarky/kitsche that is bemusing even amongst Koreans.

Korean "medicine food" culture originates from back in the days when traditional Korean medicine was the only thing Koreans had. Regular common, poor folk who didn't have access to acupuncture, deer horn, ginseng and such would resort to a folk, amateur version of the real thing. This would spawn concoctions and consumption of creatures not part of the regular Korean diet. Dog belongs in this category(hence dog soju which is basically an extract, extracts are how Korean medicines are made such as frog extract made (in)famous by Park Jisung). Where dog meat does differ from these usual fares is that dog meat had culinary value since it was a substantial protein source in times of extreme poverty(most notably end of Chosun dynasty beginning of Japanese invasion, Korean War)

I left you a long reply on my user talk page, and I made several edits to Dog_meat#Korea. Take a look. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop canvassing.

Strange how I didn't get a request for comment from you..it is as if you were requesting comments only from those who are likely to share your opinion.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sennen goroshi

Hello, Melonbarmonster2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Caspian blue 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comfort women

On the article, I was merely correcting poor grammar "forced into sexual slavery involved in prostitution " sounds awful. Also see the talk page, some were forced into sexual slavery, some were involved in prostitution. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the edit I reverted. Please check the edit history again.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now curious as to why you reverted my edit, I don't really care who did what first in relation to our edits, I just want the article to be accurate and to be without grammatical errors. Could you explain if (and if so, why) you have a problem with me changing "forced into sexual slavery involved in prostitution " to "forced into sexual slavery or involved in prostitution " As the article has many references to the fact that there were also Japanese prostitutes acting as comfort women ie. involved in prostitution, not sex slaves, it seems accurate to state that some were forced into slavery while others were involved in prostitution. The last thing I want is another stupid edit war, we both have a crappy block history and to be honest if I really wanted to I could quite easily time my edits to leave you with two options, 1. break 3RR or 2. accept my version - that would however be stupid, I would like the article to have wording that all people are happy with. Do you have any alternative wordings that might be more suitable? Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. The reference supporting that sentence states 'forced into slaver'. The issue of voluntary/involuntary is a highly POV issue that is dealt elsewhere in the article. In any case in a highly controversial article like you know you can't just make these kind of changes on whim without consensus in which case the text should remain in its last state of consensus. You've been through this many times. If you want make a edit proposal specifically about the "or" "in" change and we'll discuss it.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new citation, we are both close to hitting 3RR, so if you don't like my edit please tell me and I will self-revert, rather than have you break 3RR. I consider both of us to be acting in good faith, so lets keep this out of ANI. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I am going to bed. If you revert my edit with good cause I will not consider it to be a breach of 3RR - however I'm sure someone will notice and take action - obviously the best situation for me is that you agree with my edit - but if you don't I will self-revert if needed and we can sort this out on the talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation on Korean cuisine

Please follow this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean cuisine to participate in mediation on the issues with the Korean cuisine article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a request for outside comment which just turned into bickering, and then I offered a vote and requested that you give suggestions on why you oppose and you did not do so. All of your answers repeat the same reason which is a POV and that the information is not found in the text labeled which is incorrect, this is not personal it is your argument against everyone else who is working on the article, please take place in the mediation because I am tired of this dog meat section which I have had to dbate constantly for the last year+ since I starting working on the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for move of Empress Myeongseong

Hello, Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has requested for move to the article of Empress Myeongseong to Queen Min. There is open for the discussion at Talk:Empress Myeongseong#Requested move. Since you've participated in editing the article, your input would be appreciated on this. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I really don't mean to be a jerk, but could you please give your suggestion to what you think would be a decent compromise for the Korean cuisine article. I won't promise to agree, but at least I will listen to your suggestions, you just have argued against everything at this point but haven't offered anything constructive yet.--Chef Tanner (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

instead of reverting, perhaps you could contribute here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#name_as_per_birth_certificate

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm

On the empress (I cant spell her name)/Queen Min article, we seem to be having issues - as far as I am concerned the content can be dealt with later, the content can reflect Japanese POV, Korean POV or something in the middle - but that sort of things takes time.

However I want that crappy grammar sorted out - your revert while it might change the content to something you are happier with, also removes the grammatical corrections that I made.

How would you propose that we rectify this?

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a question

how is stating someones birth name POV? it would seem to be merely a fact to me, but please enlighten me as to why you consider it to be POV カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you're playing these revert games with Korea related sites proves your motive. If you contributed and made good faith edits on non POV issues that would be a different story. So when did you come over to wikipedia from 2ch? Lee Myoung Bak's Japanese name has been purged with history and dealing with such names brings in historical issues that are inappropriate for misleading inclusion in introduction to a living person's wiki article. Please stop being disruptive.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I could come over like an asshole and say the one who is playing revert games is you, that would not be very productive, would it? Regarding 2ch, I have never been there in my life. But on to more important issues, 1. Your opinion of me is not relevant to wikipedia, nor to any edits either of us make on any article, if you want to exchange abusive E-mails then my user page has a link to my E-mail. 2. On that article I agree, some of the 2ch regulars might get a kick out of the Japanese leader having his original Japanese name on his wikipedia article just as lots of people get a kick out of some nationalistic fact being on wikipedia, but despite that leaving a bad taste in your mouth, it is highly irrelevant. I do actually credit you with a touch more intelligence and more social graces than some of the idiots I have had to deal with here, so perhaps you will realise that a bit of give and take is the best way for us to coexist. We can go head to head and I am sure on some articles you will get your way, and on others I will get mine, there will be numerous reverts and we will probably both get blocked a few more times - or we can be reasonable, still have the same amount of articles going the way we wish, but not get blocked and have more time to edit, rather than to revert and get blocked. To this end, I think the Lee Myung-bak would probably be better if you self-reverted - I think it is a foregone conclusion anyway - it is a cited fact, no BLP issues, no MOS issues - just crying POV isn't really going to change things, it is just going to prolong the drama. I am sure if you were reasonable about that article, I would see you in a different light and would find myself far more willing to compromise and become open-minded the next time we clash. Well, anyway the choice is yours, I think compromise is a wonderful thing - for example with compromise I imagine the Empress Myeongseong article issues could be resolved easily - I want good grammar, you want to include certain details. If you are happier discussing this via email, feel free. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm down. Your regular rounds on Korea related sites making pestering edits that have nothing to do with article improvement or factual accuracy but inane POV edits(Empress Myeongeong being a prime example) is well known. If you can't control yourself from using profanity and turning these edits into a personal issue, I will delete and ignore future comments from you on my talk page.

Keep it about the substantive issues in the article talk page and concentrate on the facts.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are just as guilty as anyone else of taking things personally and being disruptive, I assume your edits are not based on the desire to disrupt wikipedia, I imagine (and correct me if I am wrong) your edits are based on national pride and the desire to see what you consider the truth being told - however the amount of conflicts you are involved in must tell you that something is going wrong. I agree that in my dealings with you I could probably try a touch harder, use a little more tact and attempt to compromise, but surely you understand that just as you can morally justify your edits, I can morally justify mine. You see my edits as someone highly pro-Japanese trying to paint Japan as a wonderful nation at the expense of Korea, I see your edits as exactly the opposite. I see your edits on the Lee Myung-bak article as someone who considers a Japanese name to be highly offensive and wishing to hide the actual facts. I don't take these things personally, however I will strive to put things right - both of our aims can be put right, but I am getting tired of locked articles, edit wars, counting how many reverts I am entitled to make, etc. Neither of us are retarded, we are both capable of working out how to time a revert so that the other has to either break the 3RR or allow the current version to stand - but that is hardly productive. If you wish to delete my messages then feel free, I am just hoping that things can calm down a little. I do not imagine that we will share the same opinions, however we could both continue to interact in a slightly less confrontational manner. Your choice, you can agree to work together, or you can respond with insults/accusations or just delete this message. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello, could you check carefully before reverting? At Talk:Empress Myeongseong#Interpretation of the source 1 Bukubku (talk · contribs) agreed to remove his dubious primary source from articles after I pointed out on incorrectness of the source. Therefore, he removed the one link (not all primary source though). Also, I recommend you take a step back to prevent from violating 3RR. Thanks--Caspian blue 21:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he only agreed to remove "only one source" so far after a fallacy of the source has proven by many other reliable sources including a researcher of National Institute of Korean History. I have waited for him to finish translation on his other primary source. Woo Jang-choon and other articles describing her death have still serious problems regarding primary sources though. I am just worrying that you're quick to revert many article in a short period of time.--Caspian blue 22:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'll keep an eye out on how things turn out. I'm against use of primary sources in contentious issues in general though.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Myeonseong/Queen Min

What do you propose that we do in order to set some standard about naming the above person in articles? The naming of her article is a separate issue.

I really don't want to see empress myeonseong/queen min in an article, it should be one or the other. I imagine you would like to see only Empress Myeonseong in the articles, but that desire may prove to be unrealistic - I would suggest that Queen Min is used when talking about events prior to her death, and Empress Myeonseong after her death, but if you have any better suggestions they would be welcome.

One article I was looking at was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom as she was not the Queen at birth, and the article has to talk about her prior to her becoming Queen - they use her name Elizabeth, is there an equivalent for Empress Myeonseong? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

place of birth

Is that also POV?

I assumed from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roh_Moo-hyun that it was not POV.

Is it only POV when they are born in Japan?

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Young-sam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yun_Bo-seon

are those two POV as well?

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is POV. If it's not POV you wouldn't be constantly trying to inject Japan into this article and then reverting as you've been doing. Stop your disruptive edits and ruining your karma.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to see the other side of the coin, to try to remove all mention of Japan to me is POV. It is as if being born in Japan or having a Japanese birth certificate is something to be ashamed of and hidden away. But I liked your comment regarding karma カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sennen, you went from reverting in the guy's Japanese occupation era birth certificate Japanese name to injecting his Japanese birth place. In all honesty if you just calmed down and made some productive, non-controversial edits where you weren't trying to inject pro-Japanese edits literally ALL the time in cahoots with the 2ch crossover crowd, perhaps you would garner some credibility for yourself.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that you don't agree with my edits, but just as you see me being the same as the 2ch guys, I don't see much difference between you and certain other ultra pro-Korean editors (names will not be mentioned, but I am sure you can work it out) Life is like that, it is very easy to see your ideas as the only valid ones and supporting those ideas seems morally correct - however that is just what people with opposing views think about their opinions and actions. But anyway, time to make some good faith edits and see if I can restore my karma. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there are no 2ch Korean equivalent ilk on wiki. If there were I would be first to flame them. I very well believe that you're not from 2ch but you're running with that crowd through your edits and that's damaging enough to your credibility. Good luck with your karma.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research tag

Come on, why are you tagging such thing to articles without reasoning? Those articles just need "inline citations". --Caspian blue 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged articles that have no citations or 1 or 2 citations. If I were to use just inline citations, There would a fact tags throughout the entire article. I think those article tags are pretty appropriate. Let me know if there are any specific articles that you think deserves fact tags instead of article tags though.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those have external links which may be used as references.--Caspian blue 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not citations and an article that contains no citations can be appropriately tagged as possibly containing unverified claims in need to citations. I have no problems with you changing tags as you've done for now.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm what to do?

On the Lee Myung-bak article, I want it included you don't - we don't seem to be making any progress. Any suggestions so that one way or another we can solve this dilemma and move on?

BTW, while I would like his birth name and place of birth included, I would probably settle for just the birth name in the spirit of compromise, however I do understand that you would be happiest if neither were included.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop trying to make unilateral edits and leave the text in its last state of consensus. That would be the first step in any kind of progress instead of trying to force edits to text when there are editors who obviously disagree with you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean cuisine

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --Chef Tanner (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this issue, there is a 3R report about you here, please take the time to read and respond to the issue. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean cuisine.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite

16:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

thank you

!

I don't know if you were aware

-but a certain user is removing 'iron-clad' in various articles refering to the turtle-ship. The edits are also accompanied by misleading edit summeries such as 'disputed claim' yet it the user removes the entire notion of iron-cladding. Now I don't know if you two had an agreement or are in an ongoing conversation so I'm going to delay the edits until you respond. Akkies (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea article

three points

1. you are undoing my revert of edits made by a sock-puppet that is now operating with anon IPs. Are you sure you wish to support the edits of such a person?

2. If you look at the talk page, and you disregard the comments made by the sock puppets, and disregard the constant reverts made by the socks/anon IPs of the socks, then you might have a different opinion regarding consensus.

3. My edits were designed to remove the laughably pathetic edits that are so blatantly overly positive about South Korea, that they make me ashamed to say I am a wikipedia editor - do you really want people to think that is what South Koreans are really like? You want people to assume you are all so insecure that you have to edit wikipedia article making them state the oldest, best, world leader, major power, high tech, blah blah blah? Instead of just blindly reverting my edits, you might want to take a look at the article first.

but hey, if you contributed to the talk page then you might know all of the above. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]