User talk:Kuebie/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kuebie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
South Korea
Kuebie, being classified as one of the "Next Eleven" countries is not something to be proud of. It means South Korea is still considered as one of the developing countries (hoo jin gook) such as Bangladesh and Vietnam. It also contradicts the page's explanation that Korea has an advanced economy. Could you delete the "next eleven" part? Pres-T-G-us (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well some people consider South Korea to be a developing country. Kuebie (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is good that you realize that being one of the "Next Eleven" is the same as being classified as a developing country. Thus I assume that you will agree to not mention the "Next Eleven" part if you agree that S.Korea is a developed country. Let me ask you one question. If S.Korea were not a developed country, why would FTSE, IMF and World Bank classify S.Korea as a developed country? I do not think it is logical to ignore this classification of these international organizations. Pres-T-G-us (talk)
Joyeong
there is more evidence that suggests that Joyeong was a malgal, than he was General of Goguryeo, but maybe it's both. Odst 23:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oct 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Military history of Goguryeo, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Also please read WP:AN3
Your recently appeared to these reverts [1], [2] are considered Vandalism. I had already noticed you on talk page twice. [3], [4] Please be careful not to continue such as these disruptive immediately reverts.
By the way, I suspect you may be a sockpuppet of someone. As your contributions, you seem to be a disruptive single-purpose account for the sake of revert edit without any constructive edit. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.--Watermint 07:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Simple, I don't want to see articles about Korea continually being bastardized by white-bred Chinese nationalists. Kuebie 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in the old one, given by Watermint (talk · contribs). What an hilarious statement of him (what a contradictory as well), because he was suspected of using sockpuppetry/or being an indefinitely banned user (also definitely meatpuppetry, plotting from Commons and Japanese Wikipedia) and gave some a treat to another? The world is filled with wonders :D--Appletrees (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You're an established editor, so I don't give the 3RR warning sign. But please be careful about the policy, Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Kuebie, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! DougsTech (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Notice
When you are in dispute, could you leave a warning if your opponent or new user would face a WP:3RR violation? That would prevent any unnecessary edit wars developed. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
3rr rule
You violated 3rr rule in Gaya confederacy.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts. 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.--Propastop (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
First, the murder of the empress has nothing to do with the article, Korean swordsmanship. Second, Editing Agency of Korean History was not an organization which had rights to outlaw anything. If you want to keep the sentence, you have to show how, when, what kind of culture it outlawed with information sources. Third, as for the sentence "Japan begins a policy of eradication of Korean culture," it may be true that Korean culture was eradicated practically. But you need to show an information source which says Japan had a "policy" of edadication of it. Fourth, you believe that Kumdo or Gumdo was merged into Kendo, but before being under Japanese influence, the word kumdo did not exist. It is odd to say that Kumdo was merged into Kendo. Actually, Korean swordsmanship, which Koreans believe in, was completely ignored and Kumdo during the occupation is completely identical to Kendo. Koreans started to merge Korean swordsmanship into Kendo after WWII and made it Kumdo. If you want to say Kumdo was merged into Kendo, you must show your information source. Before reverting the article, you must show us your information sources. Please do not edit the article without it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you ignore me! Ignoring can be a reson for blocking. So please be careful!
- As I said, the murder of the empress does not have anything to do with Korean swordsmanship. Please explain why you think this information is necessary for the article.
- Japanese Agency for Editing of Korean History is not a kind of organization which has political rights to outlaw anything. If you want to add information of the Agency, please show us evidence that the Agency outlawed Korean martical arts. How? When? What martial arts?
- I added {{fact}} to the sentences which have no sources. Before adding sources, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE {{FACT}}.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot believe it. You reverted the edit again and called my edit vandalism althogh you never even reply to me. If you think you're right, do to the talk page and leave your comment. What you are doing can cause you to be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I started the discussion at dojang too. DO NOT IGNORE ME ANY MORE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE RIGHT!! DO NOT REVERT THE EDIT ANY MORE IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO ATTEND THE DISCUSSION!! OK? All you do is only to revert the edit without discussion. You're also against the 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Caution for 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaya confederacy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Korean swordsmanship. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Dojang. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Bentecbye (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Tribute. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Bentecbye (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have reported you here because you kept reverting edits although you were warned in August. You never reply to anyone either.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Block notice
Stifle (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And before you say it, the reverts you made were not vandalism, it was a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Caution for 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaya confederacy,Tribute]],Baekje. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. What is the deletion reason?
- Do not describe false translation.[5]
- Do not hide the fact.[6]
- Write the opinion as an opinion.Do not write an opinion as a fact.The opinion is different from fact.[7]Read thisWikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements
--Bentecbye (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Note about tag team editing
Situations of house mates/co-workers/associates and sock puppetry/meat puppetry/tag team editing can be indistinguishable because in all of those cases the editors will appear to be connected by technical evidence For the purposes of Wikipedia, a group of editors who edit towards the same point of view, and are otherwise indistinguishable from one another can be viewed as a single editor for the purposes of applying policy.
I recommend that you and your close associates not support each other in editorial disputes. Tag team editing tends to subvert consensus and may provide an unfair advantage over other editors who might not agree with your editorial position. Wikipedia has a very large number of articles. I am sure you all can happily find things to edit, while avoiding tag team editing. Please review the results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100. I hope this helps. Jehochman Talk 07:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
YOUR REVERT
Stop meaningless revert.Gaya confederacy,Gwanggaeto Stele,Baekje,Tribute
Please YOU discuss on talk page BEFORE reverting the page.--Propastop (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaya confederacy,Tribute,Baekje,Gwanggaeto Stele. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Dont mention false information intentionally[8][9].
READ WP:SUBSTANTIATE and Submit the source of your remark. [10]
don't delete sourced material without proper reason.[11]
Discuss on discussion page BEFORE reverting the page.--Propastop (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Gaya
Please stop editting like this[12]. The theory that Gaya was not a military outpost of Japan during the Yamato period is not an established theory. Please stop removing the names of the scholars. The names of the scholars make the article more neutral and reliable.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Baekje
"Most likely the origin of Japan as a state lies in Korea. "Peakche of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan" is the standard most historians follow." This is not true. It is true that there are some historians who claim such a thing, but it is not true that "most historians follow" that claim. I removed these sentences because of that. This is an original research. Wikipedia should not write something so doubtful or it has to mention every existing theory.
I find no reason to hide the information on Chinese and Japanese study on Gwanggaeto Stele. Although there are scholars who controvert the Conspiracy theories, stating only the information on Korean study on the stele is not fair.
Tell me the reason why you had to revert my edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
Good work on Korea articles. Unfortunately there are many Japanese and Chinese nationalists out there who have nothing better to do than to introduce their propaganda. Novidmarana (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with dead links
Don't delete dead links. Instead, mark them with the {{Deadlink}} template. See WP:DEADREF for more information. Anyway, I fixed Koreans and Koreans in the Philippines with better references. cab (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Goguryeo Reverts
You keep undoing my changes for which I'm just reverting to an acceptable form of the compromise introduction paragraph agreed to in 2007. Please explain your rationale for overturning previously agreed upon compromises. WangKon936 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jagello's edits were acceptable. Kuebie (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- But not part of the compromise reached last year. WangKon936 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please refer to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goguryeo#Intro_Paragraph for more info on what was previously agreed upon by broad consensus. WangKon936 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Such things are dismissive and susceptible to change. Kuebie (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please refer to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goguryeo#Intro_Paragraph for more info on what was previously agreed upon by broad consensus. WangKon936 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- But not part of the compromise reached last year. WangKon936 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Koreans has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lazylaces (Talk to me 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Important note
No more revert please. In a current trend, admins do not care about whether contested information is in original research or not; they tend to block anyone who violates 3RR or makes edit wars. So this is a note for you to prevent from violating 3RR. Regards.--Caspian blue 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fine thanks. Kuebie (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Koreans
ive already removed original research, plus i reworded it so its not directly copied from the source, and ive already removed instances of the word "chinese", but you apparantly has a problem with the source, which includes data compiled IN korea BY Koreans.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Koreans. 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. --Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
3RR report
Maybe you did not know, but Caspian Blue has made a report stating that you broke the 3RR rule.
The report is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Mustafa_Kemal_Atat.C3.BCrk_and_Kuebie_reported_by_Caspian_blue_.28Result:_.29
I was suprised that Caspian did not inform you that he reported you, I would recommend that if you make a report against someone, it is only fair/polite to inform them of the report.
You should take a look at the report and comment if you feel the need.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with including both Korean and Chinese renditions of people's names? I've never understood why it has to be one way or the other and not both when the subject is of people related to the Han Dynasty (or the state of Yan for that matter) but involved in Korea.--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
stop whining
chinese immigrated into korea when it was under chinese control during the Han Dynasty, and divided into 4 commandaries, Lelang being one of them. Emperor Liu Bang forcibly transported 40,000 Chinese peasants to colonies in Lelang and other commandaries in Korea such as Luolang(Pyongyang).[1] Emperor Han Wudi encouraged intermarriage with local peoples.[2]
- ^ HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE CLASSICAL WORLD 500 BC AD600, by John Haywood, copyright 1998 Andromeda Oxford Ltd, ISBN 0-7607-1973-X(casbound), ISBN 0-7607-1974-8(paperback), section 2.24
- ^ McDougal Littel, WORLD HISTORY: PATTERNS OF INTERACTION, New York edtition,ISBN-13:978-0-618-91330-5, ISBN-14:0-618-91330-0, Page 205
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove Chinese pronunciations from China-related articles. Feel free to add Korean ones, but given that they are China-related articles, removing Chinese is inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Liu Bang? Emperor Gaozu did not have control over what is now North Korea. The Chinese did not set up establishments there until the reign of Emperor Wu. Are you sure you're reading your sources correctly? Because I have the Cambridge History of China in front of me which backs up my claim.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- well i did misread the source, i was reading the part about liubang, and it didnt actually say which emperor but i forgot to look at the date.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Liu Bang? Emperor Gaozu did not have control over what is now North Korea. The Chinese did not set up establishments there until the reign of Emperor Wu. Are you sure you're reading your sources correctly? Because I have the Cambridge History of China in front of me which backs up my claim.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- no, you two, you are koreansentry are appreantly whining, #1, i removed the word chinese, and since koreansentry says it ISNT chinese anyway, you wouldnt have a problem with that DNA on this article, #2 the next thing said "from china, to korea, to japan", it didnt say, "CHINESE", #3, i just opwned korsentry on his statement that chinese never settled past the great wall till 100 years ago, #4, find a non korean, and non chinese source to refute the study, #5, the part of the study about koreans was conducted in korea by a korean, unless some chines person magically had a korean name.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Badagnani and (Tanner-Christopher) are holding the Korean cuisine article hostage and claiming that dog meat is a staple of Korean food along with rice, kimchi, pork, chicken, etc..
I am proposing 1)removal of this section for the reason that it is factually inaccurate(dog meat is not in the same category as beef, chicken and other staple korean foods) and that we work on 2)an objective presentation of facts about dog meat.
I have added dispute tags in the section to indicate that POV and accuracy of the section is in dispute and Badagnani and (Tanner-Christopher) are claiming that not even a dispute exists and have reverted my tags.
I am planning take this into dispute resolution steps so please participate and comment on this dispute so that we can have diversity of opinions and views represented. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Civility
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koreans&diff=prev&oldid=256134050
the above comment is in breach of wikipedia civility rules, please refrain from making similar comments in the future.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- it is not, and despite the fact that i am annoyed with many of kuebie's edits and reverts, your wikistalking and reporting on his every move is totally unacceptable. please do not barge into conversations to settle old scores.Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- in fact, i hope you don't mind i don't file a report on you at ANI for trying to settle old scores hby barging into other disputes and wikistalking.Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- note im talking to sennen goroshiu, not to kuebie.Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- in fact, i hope you don't mind i don't file a report on you at ANI for trying to settle old scores hby barging into other disputes and wikistalking.Julius Ceasarus From Primus (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL Primus, I have no idea who you are, I find it ironic that you "barge into" this conversation, in order to complain about me "barging into" conversations.. very funny. If you think my actions deserve an ANI report, go ahead, I shall look forward to it making my day a little more eventful. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Kuebie. 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 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Hyong
Thank you for stopping by my talk page. As far as I know, Hyong(兄) is a Sino-Korean word which roughly corresponds to the native Korean words 'Ma-ji' and 'Mat-adeul'. However, the Korean word 'Mat-' is cognate to the Goguryeo word 'Māk' meaning 'great', 'very big'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagello (talk • contribs) 09:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Recent revert on South Korea
If you have problems with any of the edits that I made to improve the South Korea page, I have given the reasoning behind those edits on the talk page and have been begging for discussion if anyone has issue with any of those edits. As I find it difficult to believe that all of those edits are objectionable, I'd appreciate it if you didn't blindly revert my good faith edits. Thanks. KieferFL (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Conventional name is not Native name
What do you think?--Bukubku (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information on Korea under Japanese rule, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bukubku (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Editing behavior
Another user has asked me to take a look at your edits regarding Japan - Korea issues. Be aware that if you are editing disruptively - for example, by contravening WP:NPOV, edit warring or repeatedly reverting established edits without attempting to or responding civilly to the attempts of others to communicate, your ability to edit Wikipedia may be restricted. Please engage in dialog before making any further reversions or undos. Thanks, Deiz talk 12:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
3RR block for Korea under Japanese rule
···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste move of Wei Man
Hi! It looks like you're trying to move one or more pages. However, please stop doing that this way - the new name of the page might be good, but Wikipedia has another procedure for moving pages. Look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GFDL copyright terms. Also, in some cases, when the move might be controversial, you might first want to discuss the move on the article's talk page. If a move is not possible because a page with the new name already exists, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! --Kusunose 00:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Please Stop the cut-and-move of Wei Man. As I have previously explained, your action violates GFDL copyright terms. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please follow the instructions at requested moves if you want to rename the article. --Kusunose 01:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing how neither one of the articles have been deleted, I'm not violating anything. Kuebie (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just full-protected the redirect at Wiman of Gojoseon; if you want the article moved there, you're going to have to fill out a proper move request via WP:RM and provide evidence that your position is correct. And yes, you were violating the GDFL by moving the article via copy-paste; if you continue to do it (to any article, not just Wei Man), you will very likely be blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the importance of the move other than for nationalistic/political purposes (in which case it should not be permitted, as it distorts understood truth, which may change in the future, in favor of a POV), unless the article itself was being vandalized (in which case a protective move, provided it is done through the proper channels, is justified). There simply isn't enough evidence currently to justify such a renaming or re-categorizing of Wiman. Once more evidence is discovered or previously-held understandings are confirmed, only then should appropriate action be taken (if necessary). In any event, I am under the understanding that Wiman Joseon is distinct from Gojoseon, after Wiman usurped the throne. As for the now-closed (unfairly or not) discussion regarding the move, I would disregard the comments made by the users identified only by their IP, as that and their comments indicate that they are unreliable (and in some cases, PRC-POV-biased). Patience - no one seriously regards Wikipedia as a legitimate resource yet, especially not for politically sensitive information such as this, so whatever the article actually says is not particularly important, especially given that it is highly subject to change pending new archaeo-/anthropological research. Once the truth comes out, then no one will be able to rightfully oppose your moves if they are justifiable by the truth.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Empress Myeongseong
Japanese attempt that changed name of Empress Myeongseong to Queen Min. It is not right name of Her. So, Now we are talking in Talk:Empress Myeongseong#Requested move. Please Help Empress Myeongseong --Historiographer (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Incivility
Some of the comments you made here were pointed out to me; they are decidedly uncivil. Please remember to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; others can bait you all they want, but you don't have to respond and escalate things. If you continue to make remarks like "you should really stop sucking Western DICK", you'll likely be blocked. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Korean cuisine
Please note that your name has come up on 3rr board. FYI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Melonbarmonster2 Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Winman survery
You marked your vote as *comment. Did you mean to mark it as *Support?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that my vote would be redundant since I was the one who initiated the move request. Kuebie (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you better specify your position for not confusing a closing admin because proposers of RM sometimes have no interest in taking any position just like the prior RM on the same article.--Caspian blue 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wiman
Thank you for your message on my page. I’m afraid the poll has already been closed before I can vote. Anyway, I also agree with renaming Wei Man to Wiman for consistency with the article Wiman Joseon. Jagello (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dynasty. 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. Tiptoety talk 05:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Dynasty. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Kuebie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus. This Paraster account is just another sock of his. Akkies (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As Tiptoety puts it, this block doesn't have anything to do with the actions of another user. You were edit warring as well, and you were using highly inappropriate edit summaries. Next time don't do that, ok? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Sock or not, it does not justify making edits with summaries like this, this, or this. Tiptoety talk 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, I agree. You can hold me for that. But that account should be banned or have it go through checkuser. Akkies (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sta...walking
Hello, I would prefer, if you desist from rounding up other Korean users to defend the cause of Grand Korea. Such nationalistic impulses are not well received on Wikipedia and may quickly lead to a prolonged block log as you already seem to have found out. I will not hesitate to draw the attention of an admin to such actions. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fine then. I am mainly interested in the history of technology, and I have nothing against Korean history. I just don't think there is much evidence for the ships being iron-clad. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kuebie. Could you leave your input on this issue since you're also wikistaked by the user in quesition. I would appreciate your input there. Thanks--Caspian blue 01:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Goguryeo Intro Paragraph
No need to call it Korean in the first sentence. The second paragraph does a sufficient job of that. Keep the first sentence fairly neutral as to not invite revision war by Chinese netizens. Thanks. WangKon936 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
KoreanSentry says
Chk your email, the site was down. I've sent everyone email, if you can't find it, send me email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Civility
Be civil. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
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. Eugene Krabs (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -Royalguard11(T) 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Regarding Goguryeo language at least, in the future you might want to request page protection if it's becoming clear there are sockpuppets involved in editing an article. I agree with the version you were reinstating, but as the edits weren't strictly vandalism, I can't agree with the manner in which you were doing so. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Joseon Dynasty
Hi, Kuebie. Could you come to Talk:Joseon Dynasty and join discussions on Joseon Dynasty's sovereignty? A User:Jpatokal are I do not agree on the issue and I think 3rd opinion from editors would be good in the current circumstance. I need more opinion from editors who know Korean history. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Taejo of Joseon and Joseon Tongsinsa
I deleted some unnecessary information in Taejo of Joseon about relationships with Japan added by User:Tenmei. But the user readded it and placed a lot of talks on Talk that I can not understand. He did the same to Joseon Tongsinsa. He deleted arbitrary about diplomatic mission (Tongsinsa) of Joseon Dynasty before Japanese invasions of Korea, and changed their name as old romanization. --Historiographer (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Joseon Tongsinsa
Hi, you might be busy, but I am also very busy these days. However, this is serious, so I really need help. As User:Tenmei edits Korea-Japan history articles, Joseon Tongsinsa, Taejo of Joseon and Korean diplomats, he ignores Korean naming conventions and names, and removed contents. He also inserted unrelated or trivia and very old outdated sources to articles. So please join the discussion of Joseon Tongsinsa and Taejo of Joseon. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kuebie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |