Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 23 May 2007

Chronological Archives
1

Japanese people

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japanese people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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.--Endroit 17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Melonbarmonster, you have been reported for 3RR violation on Japanese people and have been blocked for 24 hrs. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR policy, and when you come back, please do your best to follow our rules. Many thanks, Crum375 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the tabulation of reverts, you'll find the first reported revert was a good faith edit and not a revert at all. I've only made 3 reverts thus far. Please review the history page of the article. I've also sent a request for review. Thanks. melonbarmonster 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized now what has happened over here, and I'd like to be on record saying that I don't believe that this particular case constituted a 3RR violation — at least according to the letter of the policy — and that if punishment was deemed necessary, it should have been doled out in equal amount to Endroit. In the past I sometimes thought you were being less than civil, but I like to hear both your opinions and Endroit's opinions at Talk:Japanese people and I'm glad that you came back to the talk page again with productive intentions and no evidence of anger once your block expired. Dekimasuよ! 14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Here is the 3RR report, to which I added the diff of the version reverted to:

• Previous version reverted to: 18:04, 24 January 2007

• Diff showing insertion of the word 'forced' by User:Melonbarmonster:

• 1st revert: 17:15, 28 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:26, 28 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:36, 28 February 2007
• 4th revert: 18:23, 28 February 2007

Melonbarmonster, AFAICT there are clearly 4 reverts, all inserting the word 'forced', identical to that same word you inserted in the 'version reverted to'. Many thanks, Crum375 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're not correct on the facts and I did mention "among other changes" besides the "compulsory vs. forced" issue. That January version of the edit which you've dug up was rejected in the talk page for redundancy since "forced" and "repressed" both imply similar negative connotations. My last version(reported as 1st revert) was a different compromise from the January version of the sentence in question(even if it looks similar to you) and was accepted by the same editors since I compromised by replacing "repressed" with a more neutral description of "colonized". I also changed "forced cultural assimilation" to "forced assimilation". Even though these changes seem insignificant, these subtle changes have been tweaked, reworked and make up the entire history of discussion regarding this sentence! The reported "first revert" was in fact an original compromise and original rewording of the sentence! It was not an undoing of previous edits or reversion to a previous version. Check the talk page of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Japanese_people#February_NPOV_discussion to verify progression of edits and tweaks to this sentence and the ensuing discussion which documents the issues regarding the rewording of this sentence. melonbarmonster 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster, I have no doubt that you are sincere, but it seems very clear to me as an uninvolved party that all that matters is that there is your initial version where you added 'forced', then there are four separate reverts where you inserted the same word. To me that is clearly a WP:3RR violation. If some other admin feels this is not a textbook example of 3RR, they can review the case, explain why it's not 3RR, and unblock. Crum375 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is another summary, to make it even clearer. Melonbarmonster is disputing his 3RR block on Japanese people. For the benefit of any admins looking at this report, the violation was as follows:

• Version reverted to: 18:04 24 Jan, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
• 1st revert: 17:15, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
• 2nd revert: 17:26, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
• 3rd revert: 17:36, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
• 4th revert: 18:23, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."

Thanks, Crum375 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand why you would think that just because an edit adds the word "forced" that it's a REVERT and not an ORIGINAL EDIT. If there's a disagreement about the wording of a sentence, different reworking may include or not include certain words and still be an original edit. I don't understand why you're so adamant in bending over backwards to interpret this as a REVERT while ignoring the context of the situation. According to your reasoning, if you just come up with ONE particular wording of a sentence that uses "forced" that means you can't EVER use the word "force" again in future wordings of the sentence or it's a REVERT because of that word! That MAKES NO SENSE and would RUIN WIKIPEDIA. The existence of "forced" in that sentence doesn't preclude a particular reworking of that sentence from being an original, compromised EDIT.

What you need to do is follow the progression of the tweakings of this sentence and read the talk page which documents the discussion and tweakings of the sentence. More evidence that my EDIT was an orginal, compromised EDIT and NOT a revert is supported by the fact that it was accepted by a third editor(Dekimasu who was around from the beginning of this dispute) into the text of the article. If it was merely a revert, he would have rejected it. But the fact was that it was an original compromise is why it is now part of the article and why it proves that my EDIT was NOT a REVERT. Thanks. melonbarmonster 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear opinions of other admins in this matter, if possible. To me this is clearly a classical 3RR violation, but I am open minded. Crum375 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Read part of the discussion in GergeHerbert's talk page. It seems you are still representing my recent edit as being the same as my January edit because they both contain the word "forced". This is factually wrong and you're not addressing my explanations as to why my recent edit is a progression from my January edit. Slimvirgin even states that they are "identical" edits and you and George just take her word for it. It is FACTUALLY wrong to say that my "edit" brought back the sentence to it's state in January. Those two are DIFFERENT versions of that sentence. The January edit was rejected. My recent edit takes reasons for past rejection into consideration and hence was incorporated into the text of the article. The sentence has evolved and my proposed edit was an orginal edit and not a revert. I don't know why you guys were concerned about the January edit being a month back. Even if it was an hour back, if it reflects honest progression and evolution of edits, it is not an revert. And not all sides used the talk page. The reporter only joined the talk page after unilaterally reverting my edit twice.

A classical 3RR violation would be one in which the first revert is a clear undoing of the edits made by other editors. That is not what happened here.

Your interpretation of the 3RR makes it a REVERT to use a word more than once when you're proposing different wordings of a sentence in trying to resolve edit disagreements. That makes no sense. More often than not, you have to use the same words in different ways to try to resolve edit differences. You're interpretation makes this impossible.melonbarmonster 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is being disputed by admins I respect, so I may be wrong. I still feel that you technically didn't 3RR violate at this time, though.

In any case, both you and Endroit both were pushing the envelope. The 3RR policy doesn't mean that you're always allowed 3 reverts; less can be disruptive. The two of you could have stopped earlier and asked for further input or discussion, mediation or some sort.

This is exactly the sort of situation where you should stop and get someone else involved in the discussion.

That said, I leaned the other way, and I'm taking the policy question of how 3RR policy applies up to get a real answer.

Please don't be discouraged by all this. Your block expired normally, you can edit away again. Just please do so slightly more carefully in the future. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine and I understand. While I hvae no problem just waiting out the block, I'm still trying to bring attention to this and get more feedback in hopes of some sort of rasonable understanding bc I feel like the other admins are wrong.

From what I can gather from your talk page Crum still doesn't have his facts right. Crum is still representing my first edit as a reversion to an edit that I proposed back in January(mind you he had no idea about the January version when he first blocked me!!!). Those two versions contain similar elements(such as "force") but they are not the same! There are many compromised elements present in my recent edit that were not in the January version which is why it was supported by a third editor who had rejected my January edit proposal. Slimvirgin and Crum are wrongly ignoring the evolution between those two versions(documented in the History and Talk page of "Japanese people"). I've explained this over and over but Crum has yet to respond on this point and is stuck on the fact that "force" was added in both the January edit and my recent edit and slimvirgin(and perhaps other admins) seems to have just taken Crum at his word.

My 2 cents on the policy question is that I think there has to be some issues that need to be clarified:

1. There has to be a policy that enables administrators and editors to distinguish a REVERT and a normal EDIT when the edits involve same words which are being reworked, reused in a normal editing process by editors working out disagreements. My case presents an example when simply looking for same edit elements(such as looking for addition of "force" in place of "compulsory") misses the natural progression of edits that may use, delete, reuse the same edit elements in different variation. E.g., just bc "force" was proposed in multiple edits doesn't mean that each edit containing that word is automatically a REVERT. Admins should be capable of looking beyond reappearance of a single "edit" element and distinguish REVERTS from instances when editors are engaged in normal editing with edit proposals that contain different variations of the same edit element. To ignore the existence of this distinction in policy creates a ridiculous situation in which editors can't propose different and original uses of edit element(s) from previous edit versions ecause it would be considered a REVERT. This is not what the 3RR and wiki policy against RW are trying to prevent.

2. A clear, classic example of a revert is when an edit changes the text back to a previous version in whole or in part. However, it must be noted in policy that this doesn't preclude editors from reusing elements of previous edits in novel ways or in a normal edit process to trying to resolve differences. You want editors to do more of this: to rework and propose compromised versions of previously disagreed elements in new arrangements and compromise and be flexible. This is how you prevent edit wars.

3. If RW'ing is deemed enough for a block, the block must be also placed on the other party engaged in the same level of RW'ing. It makes no sense to block only the reported party(reported by the RW opponent) for RW while taking no action against the reciprocating party.

4. The process of review of Unblock requests must be conducted by third party admins. Admins who placed the Block becomes a biased party as soon as review is requested and are more likely than neutral admins to be unwilling to overturn their own decision. It is unfair to make blocked editors who may have been wrongly blocked to have the burden of convincing the admin that they were wrong. This defeats the purpose of review and is bad policy.melonbarmonster 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

petition

{http://www.petitiononline.com/comfortw/petition.html} please sign the online petition to the Japanese government, regarding the comfort women issue. thanks. Odst 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) melonbarmonster 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Kimchi

I love what you did to the kimchi article, but I have changed it back to link Chinese cabbage with the mention of nappa, since I usually see it called Chinese cabbage in supermarkets. Hope you think that's reasonable. Also, Napa redirects to Chinese cabbage anyways. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese cabbage encompasses a variety of vegetables that are not used for kimchi. Only the napa variety, also known as chinese white cabbage, is used commonly for kimchi. It's more accurate to use napa cabbage rather than a generic term. melonbarmonster 06:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Oops

Sorry for the misspelling of your name. RogueNinja 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Karate. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

re: Mediation

i am doing the mediation on the karate talk page but we can do it on the case request page if you want more security.Razor romance 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Statement

Please add your opening statement to the mediation page for karate.

Thanks! RogueNinja 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of removing cited sources

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Misplaced Pages without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Do not remove cited sources; see the linked article for sample text. When the reference is replaced, please be aware that continuing this would further cause a violation of the 3RR rule. —LactoseTI 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be on crack. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406

Good grief.melonbarmonster 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I realized I miscounted (I thought you had reverted 3 times, when in fact you reverted 4); just to let you know, a report was filed on the 3RR noticeboard for your username. —LactoseTI 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Trying to cover up your lies by changing your previous comments i see.melonbarmonster 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

It seems you misunderstood, so I clarified. I'm not sure what part you thought is a "lie," but assume good faith and see it for what it is--an attempt to help you understand. —LactoseTI 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard to assume good faith when you keep lying about your reference being deleted:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406 Click on this link and you'll see clearly that you provided no references to be deleted.melonbarmonster 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Throwing around labels like "liars" is really a personal attack. I will link yet again to where you removed the reference: ]. —LactoseTI 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving your lie. I made those deletions at 21:53 long after your fraudulent accusation that I deleted your nonexistent references. Here's some more proof:

(cur) (last) 21:37, 12 April 2007 LactoseTI (Talk | contribs) (Do not delete referenced material. Please note that a ship build in the 1590's does not predate a (referenced) ship in the 1570's)

How can you complain about deleted references at 21:37 when those deletions were made at 21:53??? Please stop trying to lie and provide references if you want to make edits to the text.melonbarmonster 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Nice job on that. I was looking through the article and it sounded like it was so against ironcladding. Good friend100 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Heimstern Läufer 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Karate/Mediation

We are awaiting your input to proceed. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've closed this mediation out as successful. Please see my concluding note at Talk:Karate/Mediation#Mediation concluded. Thank you for your participation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel Bryant 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —LactoseTI 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you. —LactoseTI 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith (again)

Making edits like this are contrary to good faith. Copying good faith warnings to my talk page continues the trend... —LactoseTI 05:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks (again)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. In reference to this edit and others. —LactoseTI 05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be best for you to not use terms that you don't know the meanings to. I didn't mean it as a personal attack.melonbarmonster 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a professor, I tend to use these terms quite freely in conversation, etc. It would be easier to believe ignorance on your part to a personal attack if you didn't use such phrases as, "Good grief." —LactoseTI 06:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Good Grief" is a G-rated phrase that conveys dismay, frustration, surprise along the same lines as other such phrases of exclamation such as "oh man", "come on", "Give me a break", "have mercy", etc.. I hope you're not a prof., or at least not in US. Why don't you do yourself a favor and read secondary source. You really should read it "professor"...good grief.melonbarmonster 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a "G-rated phrase," but it still comes across as quite rude. Not that it's any of your business, but I do research and teach at a NY university. —LactoseTI 06:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally find your edits and comments to be so far beyond "rude" and well into dishonest, insincere and morally anemic. I don't mean that sarcastically or to attack you but I'm being entirely serious and honest. As a New Yorker myself, I hope you learn a lot while you're in NY and expose yourself to diverse perspectives that differ from your own.melonbarmonster 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've lived here my whole life; and while you might feel a certain way, though you are honest, it can still be an attack. Comment on the contribution itself; if you don't agree with something, say why, don't assert it's insincere, etc. On Misplaced Pages, we have an explicit assumption of sincerity--I believe you sincerely meant the attacks, just I sincerely meant whatever comment you may have found "insincere." —LactoseTI 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's very subjective which is why I tried to keep our discussion to references and facts. You've contributed none while being plenty disruptive. You've so far violated any assumptions of good faith that it's not really amusing to me that you'd even mention it.melonbarmonster 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not A Bogus Category

Melon, I agree with a lot of your changes when you explain them, but not this one. See the following categories:

• Category:American assassins
• Category:Dutch assassins
• Category:French assassins
• Category:Israeli assassins
• Category:Italian assassins
• Category:Japanese assassins
• Category:Russian assassins
• Category:Spanish assassins

Can you explain why the Korean one is exception and these are okay? Komdori 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it was created by Japanese POV trolls to include ONLY An Changho and Kim Ku. There are legitimate assassins who carry out assassination such as Lee Harvey Oswald, etc.. You would have to be a Japanese troll to not be able to distinguish legitimate assassins from guys like Kim Ku and An Jun Geun who are revered as national heroes.melonbarmonster 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith

Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Komdori 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You would do well to stop your anti-Korean POV pushing and participating in substantive discussions about issues at hand.melonbarmonster 02:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation Report

Just the requisite notice that you have been reported for a 3RR violation for the third time. Komdori 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

consecutive reverts between you and me are considered to be 1 revert according 3rr. Maybe you should concentrate on discussing the issues at hand.melonbarmonster 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive edits by you are one revert. A revert after I revert is a revert. Komdori 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, why are you arguing with me about this? Please stop pestering me and stick to discussions about actual article topics. Good grief.melonbarmonster 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 1 week for violating the three-revert rule again, as well as for incivility in your remarks toward others. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me bringing this up on your talk page; seems like a better place for discussion. "Consecutive reverts" means you make a revert and then immediately make another, with no intervening edits from other users. For example, you make one revert, then revert further back immediately thereafter. That's only one revert. If you revert, another user reverts you, and you revert that user, though, that is two reverts. Is that any clearer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's disturbing to hear that because I was told what you described was considered a single revert by previous admin on the 3rr board. I know admins are volunteers and are not perfect but inconsistency like this is disturbing. And 1 week for making 1 more revert than Komdori seems egregious and unfair. Komdori has ignored my requests at discussing the topic at hand and has been obsessed with disrupting my edits and agitating arguments that have nothing to do with topic of articles. It takes two to tango and it makes no sense that only I would get a 1 week ban.melonbarmonster 04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Dokdo. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Misplaced Pages:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.--Endroit 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Dokdo, you will be blocked from editing. --Endroit 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page instead of leaving these disingenuous templates.melonbarmonster 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. You persist in deleting content from the An Jung-geun and Yoon Bong-Gil pages. It's not really a content dispute, it's straightforward and sourced. Multiple editors are reverting your changes. Perhaps if you'd like to start a conversation about it on the talk page? --Cheers, Komdori 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Dokdo, you will be blocked from editing. --Endroit 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Do you guy pro-Japanese POV editors all know each other? I honestly didn't know how to edit the info box content. This would have been easier if you just responded to my request instead of initiating a revert war. Thanks for your help.melonbarmonster 16:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no excuse for such content removals, it is considered vandalism. If you don't know how to edit something, just ask others. Thank you for your cooperation.--Endroit 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Labeling good faith edits as content removal is dishonest and bad wiki etiquette. Please stop your revert warring. Thanks.melonbarmonster 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

Per good form, just a notice that your most recent violation of the 3RR has been reported here. --Cheers, Komdori 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)