User talk:Daldidandal

Welcome!

Hello, Daldidandal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Han River (Korea) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations for everything, what seems to be the problem exactly? I'm new to this since this edit is my first post, but most of the things I've changed are either backed with a primary source or sources from the korean gov't Daldidandal (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add citations for everything; most entire paragraphs you added were not accompanied by citations. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well yeah since I added the citations on the headings. Most of what I'm posting is a direct translation from government-backed websites, which include the whole sections, not only the paragraphs Daldidandal (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations don't go on headings, they go after the material, and they're expected usually every couple of sentences, not every couple of paragraphs.

Also, you can't directly translate material from government websites. That would be a copyright violation, and just a stylistic problem - Wikipedia is not a place for transcribed material. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a copyright violation as I'm paraphrasing korean content into English. However I will try to cite more often. Daldidandal (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing is still an issue. Wikipedia pages are meant to be written in your own words, using the facts from sources but not the structure and wording of the source. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no copyright problem. Turns out This is all '공공누리' or some public copyright act. I don't know how much paraphrasing is 'bad' paraphrasing but I read multiple sources on one subject,write it all down on a page on microsoft word, so I do 'write' the thing. No offense, please get off my back. Daldidandal (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Han River (Korea), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Han River (Korea), may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. You have made very substantial changes that seem to be generating controversy. I'd suggest discussing your goals on the article's talk page before making these sweeping reforms. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? where is it generating controversy? I don't understand how such a poorly stitched-together article, which was seriously lacking quality information in the first place for a quite significant river & not really that contested from what I can tell by looking at the edit history, can cause so much trouble. Is there some political agenda behind this>>? Everything is backed either by the local gov't or cited. I'm going to revert it back to my own edit, with adding what I changed on the talk page, but if you think I've made controversial changes I'd like you to tell me where & what the controversy is Daldidandal (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOR and UGC

I suspect you're not reading edit summaries, so I suggest you to go to the History tab right here and consult why it's getting reverted. The keyword is WP:NOR and WP:UGC Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added two things. One, article numbers for both wikis, korean wikipedia & namuwiki, and citied both websites' official statistics pages as a source. BTW, I believe article numbers for korean wikipedia were already available in the page, and are also available in Korean Wikipedia's version of the Korean Wikipedia article. I don't think using statistics to state facts (two wiki sites, two different sets of article count, and one having more than the other) is original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. << the two sources state two different numbers, and It's somehow original research if I put one against the other? I'm not adding any additional interpretation, I'm literally stating A is bigger than B. I'll be waiting for a reply before I revert the comparison section back. Two, I added Jimmy Wales's interview response in the chosen ilbo, without adding any "original" opinions. Which I don't see any problem with, and I think you agree with this one, seeing that you've added a sentence on this material, so I'll revert this section first. In the meantime, I'd like you to tell me what you think is wrong with the whole 'comparison' section. Good day. Daldidandal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you need an explanation. There are two instances that I regard as WP:OR per defitinion.

One is a mention of Namuwiki in the article itself. Namuwiki is a separate topic from the Korean Wikipedia. While the statistic of Namuwiki might be from a source (though it is WP:PRIMARY; I'll not get into this), the fact that it is brought up in the article is derived from your need to compare the site to the Wikipedia, and is an original thought of yours. If you want to create a section that compares the two sites, it's most desirable to find a WP:SECONDARY that does so.
The other is WP:SYNTH, which is a more subtle matter. To quote: If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. From your edit: "It is generally believed that Korean Wikipedia is not the 'go-to' wiki service of the Korean internet." This is not something mentioned in the statistic sources of two wiki websites, and this conclusion counts as an original research. Once again, this kind of analysis needs WP:SECONDARY.

Other minor issues include citing Wikitree, which is not a proper news media but has WP:UGC issue. I recommend avoiding it.

I see there's a discussion above guiding you to Wikipedia:Teahouse. I suggest going there if you need questions answered. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the last; However aren't all article numbers for Korean Wikipedia (and all other Wikipedia editions,for that matter) also a primary source, as it is provided by Wikipedia? And even if article count by K.Wikipedia is a primary source, why weren't previous edits being corrected, and etc? I'm going to assume that the article count primary sources, at the very least from Wikipedia, are ok, because even the article for English Wikipedia has article counts sourced from Wikipedia itself.

"The English Wikipedia has the most articles of any edition, at 6,893,199 as of October 2024. It contains 10.8% of articles in all Wikipedias ..." All of this, including the former part of the second one, is directly sourced from Wikipedia's sources.

Back to the problem regarding the comparison of two official statistics, I'd like to start by saying that my latest edit with the comparison section had 'It is generally believed that Korean Wikipedia is not the 'go-to' wiki service of the Korean internet.' already removed. I believe that if it is safe to state that E.Wikipedia has the Most (which is inherently comparing E.Wikipedia's article count to other editions) articles, based on only Wikipedia primary sources (on the E.Wikipedia article) , without citing any outside research, It is safe to state that K.Wikipedia has less articles than Namuwiki, using both Wikipedia's and Namuwiki's official statistics, respectively. I'd like to hear an answer before I touch the comparison section again. Again, good day. Daldidandal (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia

Per WP:CIRCULAR, please do not cite Korean Wikipedia articles as sources. They're not reliable sources, and the Korean Wikipedia itself often does not cite sources. seefooddiet (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm seeing that you've been challenged numerous times on your edits; it's because they often have significant issues with style, grammar, and citing sources. Some of these edits will take an immense amount of time to clean as they're large. Please try to accept feedback with more of an open mind. seefooddiet (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't cite only using K.Wikipedia. Daldidandal (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't, I'm saying you shouldn't cite it at all. seefooddiet (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, what article are you referring to? I don't remember citing using K.wikipedia in recent memory; Seeing that "don't use circular logic" thing. Likely I was trying to copy source material from said KW article. Thanks. Daldidandal (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your contributions page, and ctrl+f "Use of deprecated (unreliable source)". That warning shows up when you cite the Korean Wikipedia; the website is actively telling you not to do so.

I know you were trying to translate material over from the kowiki; the issue is that the kowiki is often poorly sourced. Ideally you should only bring over material you know is well-sourced. And when you translate it yourself, you should try to abide by grammar and style rules. Otherwise it creates a lot of work to clean up; I'm often the person who cleans up a lot of this kind of work. seefooddiet (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. aight, I try my best. Daldidandal (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! seefooddiet (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hangul. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]