User talk:Melonbarmonster2/archive 1

Welcome. http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90:Melonbarmonster

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:ANI#Sennen goroshi again

Hello, Melonbarmonster2, could you voice your thought on this issue? Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Korean Cuisine- Dog Eating

I usually just read on wiki and nothing else. How do you request a removal of a editor from having a semi-protected edit priviledge? I've had long argument with Badagnani two years ago(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_1) and he's expertise is based on the fact that he eats a lot of Korean food and he has "a lot" of Korea friends. Oddly, for someone that eats a lot of Korean food, he never had dogs, which according to him seems to be one of main diet.

Also, who is this chef tanner guy and why is he claiming to be an expert on Korean food? Because he's a chef? I was reading his post and the guy throws out that he has a masters in gastronomy or some crap... He's just a pseudo-intellectual who went to community college and took few classes at a crappy Boston University to get that degree...

I would like to see how we can remove them from editing Korean food. If all else fails, I will send an email to Chosun Ilbo telling them that there are two American with no connection to Korea using one the the most used internet source to present falsely negative image of Korean food.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A question about a disturbing discussion between two contributors

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. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean Foods

I'm new to Wiki editing and I do not know what the process is and who really controls the content. I proposed a new section to be created addressing controversial issues regarding Korean food. Please let me know your thoughts on section "Creating a New Sub-Section for "Controversial Korean Foods" and Expansion of "Fish and Seafoods" Santaria360 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine#Creating_a_New_Sub-Section_for_.22Controversial_Korean_Foods.22_and_Expansion_of_.22Fish_and_Seafoods.22

Mel Gibson

You agree it was controversial, and it is sourced that it was controversial. Then it is not "obviously POV". We are allowed to put sourced opinions in the article, whether in the lead or elsewhere. I did remove "hugely" regarding financial success, but there is no doubt it was controversial. In fact, it was his most controversial film, and that merits mention in the lead. If you disagree take it up on the talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree that there is any POV or "tit for tat", I'm leaving it the way you changed it. I will say, however, that you should have waited before reverting again to see if other opinions show up on the talk page. I won't call it edit warring, but it was close. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog meat

Hello, Melonbarmonster2, since you're active and have been fully knowledgeable of dog meat subject, your participation in Talk:Dog meat#Badagnani's reinserting of YouTube link would be appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Hello, Melonbarmonster2. Eugene2x (talk · contribs) files WP:Requests for comment/User conduct on Badagnani (talk · contribs). Since you've known him for a long time, your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani would appreciated. Thanks. --Caspian blue 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

Hi, Melonbarmonster2. 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) 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

hi. i saw you in pasaban's article

I feel like Spanish people defends pasaban and attacks oh eun sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozix (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL

it is very strange to find myself agreeing with you on an article, especially on a section that relates to Korea/Japan. I shall try to be less of a idiot in my interactions with you in the future. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Provisional Government

• Hello, sir! Could you please explain why the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea should be displayed as one of the successors of the Korean Empire? The Government was established only in 1919 and it was never recognized by the League of Nations? Elmor (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoring dog meat image

Sorry. I forgot to write "see talk" in my last dog meat edit summary. I've explained things there. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your post about removal of categories after I replied to your post about the main image. You may have missed the latter. I await your reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)