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]

edit-warring

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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, deleting content because you're annoyed at being reverted when you defaced the article and falsified quotations is not appropriate. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is cute. Stop adding non-backed material to the article, or you will be reported. Why do you keep adding non-cited material anyway? Just curious, you don't seem to answer the key question here. Daldidandal (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, the whole section you claim is "cited" has 3 cites total, and those are all grouped in the beginning. The rest, arguably what- 80%? 85? has 0. Sources are expected to be cited every few sentences. Daldidandal (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all there. If you want to add inline 'cn' requests for specific claims, that's appropriate. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed."

"" Although the Hunmin jeong-eum haerye (hereafter Haerye) explains the design of the consonantal letters in terms of articulatory phonetics, it also states that Sejong adapted them from the enigmatic 古篆字 "Gǔ Seal Script". The identity of this script has long been puzzling. The primary meaning of the character 古 gǔ is "old", so 古篆字 gǔ zhuànzì has traditionally been interpreted as "Old Seal Script", frustrating philologists, because the Korean alphabet bears no functional similarity to Chinese 篆字 zhuànzì seal scripts.

However the character 古 gǔ also functions as a phonetic component of 蒙古 Měnggǔ "Mongol". Indeed, records from Sejong's day played with this ambiguity, joking that "no one is older (more 古 gǔ) than the 蒙古 Měng-gǔ". From palace records that 古篆字 gǔ zhuànzì was a veiled reference to the 蒙古篆字 měnggǔ zhuànzì "Mongol Seal Script", that is, a formal variant of the Mongol ʼPhags-pa alphabet of the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) that had been modified to look like the Chinese seal script, and which had been an official script of the empire.^{[citation needed]}

There were ʼPhags-pa manuscripts in the Korean palace library from the Yuan Dynasty government, including some in the seal-script form, and several of Sejong's ministers knew the script well. If this was the case, Sejong's evasion on the Mongol connection can be understood in light of the political situation in the Ming Dynasty. The topic of the recent Mongol domination of China, which had ended just 75 years earlier, was politically sensitive, and both the Chinese and Korean literati regarded the Mongols as barbarians with nothing to contribute to a civilized society.^{[citation needed]}

It is postulated that the Koreans adopted five core consonant letters from ʼPhags-pa, namely ㄱ g [k], ㄷ d [t], ㅂ b [p], ㅈ j [ts], and ㄹ l [l]. These were the consonants basic to Chinese phonology, rather than the graphically simplest letters (ㄱ g [k], ㄴ n [n], ㅁ m [m], and ㅅ s [s]) taken as the starting point by the Haerye. A sixth letter, the null initial ㅇ, was invented by Sejong. The rest of the consonants were developed through featural derivation from these six, essentially as described in the Haerye; a resemblance to speech organs was an additional motivating factor in selecting the shapes of both the basic letters and their derivatives.^{[citation needed]}

Although several of the basic concepts of the Korean alphabet may have been inherited from Indic phonology through the ʼPhags-pa script, such as the relationships among the homorganic consonants, Chinese phonology played a major role. Besides the grouping of letters into syllables, in functional imitation of Chinese characters, Ledyard argues that^{[citation needed]} it was Chinese phonology, not Indic, that determined which five consonants were basic, and were therefore to be retained from ʼPhags-pa. These included the plain stop letters, ꡂ g [k] for ㄱ g [k], ꡊ d [t] for ㄷ d [t], and ꡎ b [p] for ㅂ b [p], which were basic to Chinese theory, but which represented voiced consonants in the Indic languages and were not basic in the Indic tradition. The other two letters were the plain sibilant ꡛ s [s] for ㅈ j [ts] (ㅈ was pronounced [ts] in the fifteenth century, as it still is in North Korea) and the liquid ꡙ l [l] for ㄹ l [l].

In order to maintain the Chinese convention of initial and rime, Sejong and his ministers needed a null symbol to refer to the lack of a consonant with an initial vowel. He chose the circle ㅇ with the subsequent derivation of the glottal stop ㆆ ʼ [ʔ], by adding a vertical top stroke by analogy with the other stops, and the aspirate ㅎ h [h], parallel the account in the Haerye. (Perhaps the reason he created a new letter rather than adopting one from ʼPhags-pa was that it was awkward to write these Chinese initials in ʼPhags-pa, where ㅇ and ㆆ were both written as digraphs beginning with y, ꡭꡝ and ꡗꡖ.)

However, Ledyard's explanation^{[citation needed]} of the letter ㆁ ng [ŋ] differs from the Haerye account; he sees it as a fusion of velar ㄱ g and null ㅇ, reflecting its variable pronunciation. The Korean alphabet was designed not just to write Korean, but to accurately represent Chinese. Many Chinese words historically began with [ŋ], but by Sejong's day this had been lost in many regions of China, and was silent when these words were borrowed into Korean, so that [ŋ] only remained at the middle and end of Korean words. The expected shape of a velar nasal, the short vertical stroke (⃓) that would be left by removing the top stroke of ㄱ g, had the additional problem that it would have looked almost identical to the vowel ㅣ i [i]. Sejong's solution solved both problems: The vertical stroke left from ㄱ g was added to the null symbol ㅇ to create ㆁ ng, iconically capturing both regional pronunciations as well as being easily legible. Eventually the graphic distinction between the two silent initials ㅇ and ㆁ was lost, as they never contrasted in Korean words.

Another letter composed of two elements to represent two regional pronunciations, now obsolete, was ㅱ, which transcribed the Chinese initial 微. This represented either m or w in various Chinese dialects, and was composed of ㅁ [m] plus ㅇ. In ʼPhags-pa, a loop under a letter, ꡧ, represented [w] after vowels, and Ledyard proposes^{[citation needed]} this rather than the null symbol was the source of the loop at the bottom, so that the two components of ㅱ reflected its two pronunciations just as the two components of ㆁ ng did. The reason for suspecting that this derives from ʼPhags-pa ꡧ w is that the entire labio-dental series of both ʼPhags-pa and the hangul, used to transcribe the Chinese initials 微非敷 w, v, f, have such composite forms, though in the case of ʼPhags-pa these are all based on the letter ꡜ h (ꡤ etc.), while in hangul, which does not have an h among its basic consonants, they are based on the labial series ㅁ m, ㅂ b, ㅍ p.

An additional letter, the 'semi-sibilant' ㅿ z, now obsolete, has no explanation in either Ledyard or the Haerye. It also had two pronunciations in Chinese, as a sibilant and as a nasal (approximately [ʑ] and [ɲ]) and so, like ㅱ for [w] ~ [m] and ㆁ for ∅ ~ [ŋ], may have been a composite of existing letters.

As a final piece of evidence, Ledyard notes^{[citation needed]} that, with two exceptions, hangul letters have the simple geometric shapes expected of invention: ㄱ g [k] was the corner of a square, ㅁ m [m] a full square, ㅅ s [s] a chevron, ㅇ a circle. In the Hunmin Jeong-eum, before the influence of the writing brush made them asymmetrical, these were purely geometric. The exceptions were ㄷ d [t] and ㅂ b [p], which had more complex geometries and were two of the forms adopted from ʼPhags-pa. For example, ㄷ d [t] wasn't a simple half square, but even in the Hunmin Jeong-eum had a lip protruding from the upper left corner, just as ʼPhags-pa ꡊ d did, and as Tibetan ད d did before that.

If the ʼPhags-pa theory is valid, then the graphic base of Hangul consonants is part of the great family of alphabets that spread from the Phoenician alphabet, through Aramaic, Brāhmī, and Tibetan (though the derivation of Brahmi from Aramaic/Phoenician is also tenuous; see the Semitic-model hypothesis for Brahmi). However, this is only one component of its derivation.""

This Whole, yes, Whole section has Zero, Zero, outside citations. Hey, do what you have to do lol. I'm not the one pushing a sketchy-at-best theory since 2008, and a "This section needs additional citations for verification." template that's been there since June 2019, apparently, XD. If you keep up publishing unsourced material, I will report you. Daldidandal (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I appreciate your writing; thank you for doing it. I'd like to make some requests if that's ok.

Main thing is there are a lot of grammar issues and typos; I know you're trying your best but often there are issues in almost every sentence that require hours of work to fix.

As a suggestion, I think making smaller edits may be better. That way it's easier for others to fix things. When large edits are made sometimes it comes up to literally over a hundred fixes that are needed in the writing; it's just too much work for others. People often just give up when that happens, and then the issues pile up.

Some other things to fix; I don't expect you to learn all of this overnight, but just things to be aware of:

MOS:HEADINGLINK, MOS:NOHANGUL, MOS:HEAD (Section headings ... should be presented in sentence case).
Please also avoid using bare urls in references; you should use this tool (try the automatic option) instead to create a more fleshed out reference. Bare URLs often become dead links quickly and it's impossible to figure out what articles are being referred to.

Best, seefooddiet (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]