to mess up my clean talk page.

찌꺼기 1

Hello. 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.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I just started Whale meat for kicks, because the dog meat fiasco pointed me that way. I did not do it to create a precedent (which by definition would be impossible). If you intend on changing the name of that article, please get consensus on talk first. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to hound your edits or anything but I do think that article should be changed to "whale (food)". There is no reason nor logic to using a cruder naming convention for 'controversial' animals(often eaten in non-western cultures) while animals consumed by 'west' are given culinary naming conventions. To use the slate article, that's rather biased.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you post on my talk page, please don't use level 1 headings, as you did twice. Instead, use level 2 headings, just like you do everywhere else. It's just common courtesy. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for your contribution to the article Korean Jindo Dog! Chrisrus (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melonbarmonster. Can you comment on an AfD I've just nominated? Thought you might be interested. Akkies (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melonbarmonster! Not that karate and kimchi have anything to do with each other but I do make sauerkraut and if I smell it fermenting, I do something to stop it! jmcw (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HORSEMEAT Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article about this dog. We can call it something else. What would you say to entitling it Korean Meat Dog? If it's an article about Korean vocabulary, you are right, it's not notable and should be deleted. If it's an article about a type of dog, it's notable. If it's an article about a particular type of dog, it's notable and should exist. I don't care what we call the article. What's important to me is that there be an article about this dog. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but as I recall what's important to you is that there not be any article about this dog on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "dog" are you talking about? Nureongi simply means 'yellow dog'. It's almost akin to the way 'brownie' is used in the US. Dogs can be brownies but the term is often used for other things of a brown color. The topic of the 'type' or 'kind' of dogs that are farmed and raised for consumption doesn't fall under the term 'nureongi'. I don't know if there's an encyclopedic topic that would fit for dogs raised for consumption. My suggestion to you is to create a section under the 'dog meat' article and title it as 'types of dogs farmed/raised for consumption'. If there was an article topic or name that fits your topic, I would have no problem with it. Unfortunately, 'nureongi' doesn't suit this purpose.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the dog in this picture: [1]. There are many of them in Korea, but almost none elsewhere. Yes, you are right, they are similar to the Jindo and Shiba Inu and so on. They are related to those dogs, but they are not the same. You are right, "Nureongi" means that in Korean. In English, for better or for worse, it doesn't refer have that meaning. It means the yellow equivilent of "blackie", perhaps "yeller" in Korean, but not in English. In English, it means only the particular dog in question and nothing else. You and I may wish that wasn't the case. We may wish that English had settled on another word for the Korean Meat Dog. But we can't tell the English language what to do and expect it to listen to us and obey. Like the word "angst" in German simply means "fear" or "anxiety". But in English Angst has a particular meaning, it covers less semantic area than the German word does. The French word "Toilet" means something other than what it does in English. In Spanish, the English word "Smoking" means "tuxedo". In Korean, the English word "service" means "free of charge". These things happen. We can't tell the Korean language to stop using the word "service" in that way. Or we can, but we aren't going to be successful and it's a waste of time. We are not going to have an article about what Korean words mean, although we can/do include this information in the "terminology" section. I hope it will satisfy you if we explain well about the origin of this word in the terminology section and say what it means in Korean there but not let this interfere with us having an article about a type of dog. But that's not what the article should be about. This article is about a particular type of dog that is called "Nureongi" in English by English-speaking experts who write about it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nureongi is a nonexistent English word. For you to argue otherwise is to engage in original research. Even English sources of that word is a reference to the Korean use of that word.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Shall we say "[2] is a yellowish spitz or primitive dog native to Korea. The [3] is not commonly kept as a pet, but has long been kept as livestock for its meat. The [4] is medium-sized with dark markings..." and so on  ? Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are understanding my position. When you try to categorize these or other dogs under the term "nureongi" and claim that it's an English word, you are engaging in synthesis and original research.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your position, what if we called this dog something else? How about "Korean Meat Dog"? I don't care what we call it. I just used that term because that's the term the source used, I REALLY don't care what we call it. There are several more terms used in the article for the [5] you might want to choose from, and the foreign language articles there on the bottom left side of the article seem to call it "the Korean Dog" in Norwegian and some other Nordic language. Or any term you would accept for the it is fine with me. Chrisrus (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for the purpose of wikipedia articles, what you call it is what matters. You are not supposed to make subjective judgments about what dogs fall under what landrace type when it's not already established in references. You are engaging in original research and arguing unverified POV.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what should we call it?

You are right, we have to simply report what is established in references with regard to what dogs fall under what landrace or type name. Our best source, [6], under the photograph on the ninth page, he calls them "meat dogs (nureongi)". Would it be acceptable to you if we re-titled the article like that? If we "move" the article to meat dogs (''nureongi''), would that satisfy your "original research" objection? Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your changing of "daikon" (the common English name, found, at least, in US supermarkets, although sometimes I've seen "Japanese radish" on US menus) to a country specific change has been reverted twice. You are required to now go to the article's talk page and discuss the issue. Continuing to revert to your preferred version, when multiple editors have shown that they disagree, is edit warring. Take it to talk and try to get a consensus. You have to learn that Wikipedia is edited by collaboration--it's not about just making trying to force the changes you want, or about periodically making them to see if anyone is still watching, or whatever it is you're trying to do. Please collaborate with other editors--discuss the issue; if consensus can't be reached, we can get outside opinions via 3O or RfC. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my edits each time in quite detail. If you would like to open a discussion to respond, I will gladly participate. If you are trying to engage in gamemanship with condescension I can already tell you that this is going nowhere.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to make a big thing of this. This is English Wikipedia. Common name is daikon. Google: "daikon" 1,230,000 to "Korean radish" 20,400. Clear case of WP:SNOWBALL. Please put this to rest before a million keystrokes are wasted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Radish. You might want to edit that page to include mention of Korea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, there's a fine line between editing articles out of good faith and tag teaming and shadowing my edits whenever one of you have an edit disagreement with me. This borders on disruptive editing so please assume good faith. I don't how many Korean radishes you guys have seen, eaten or read about but take a here are the vegetables in question. This is Daikon: http://www.google.com/search?q=daikon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=677 This is Korean radish, aka moo, used in kimchi making: http://www.google.com/search?q=korean+radish&hl=en&prmd=ivnse&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Q3a_TZKSG8ubtwfThNG_BQ&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag teaming? I happen to watch Korean cuisine and many other articles.

You are right about them being two different varietals. I suggest writing a little bit in Radish or Daikon or both, and adding to Korean cuisine something like [ [ daikon#moo | Korean radish ]] (a varietal of daikon). I think that would help visitors. Can you dig up an image? Let's solve this the right way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna do you really know if daikon and moo are the same vegetable or are you really just being argumentative? Daikon is called 왜무(倭-) in Korea and it is not used to for making 무김치 which is the context on the text in question. The "Korean radish" being referred to in the text is 조선무 and is a highly sought commodity during fall. They are called different names. They look different. They taste different. They are used to for different dishes. Undo your revert and let's try to have some good faith.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to support you, as you can see in my last post above (which I made after the revert). In fact, I just edited Daikon to mention Korean radish as distinct. Can we now link Korean radish in Korean cuisine to the daikon ariticle? If you like, as I think it is an important part of Korean cuisine, make moo into its own section in daikon. I support your position. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, moo is not a subset of daikon and your change to the daikon article doesn't make your insistence on using the term 'daikon' any more reasonable. If you look at the edit history for the daikon article, moo has already been rightly taken out of the intro as alternative names for 'daikon'. Undo your revert and let's argue about things that we actually disagree on please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be polite to me. I am trying to understand and trying to help. Please explain, taxonomically, what moo is. I've reverted my edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really I've only been cordial. All or most radishes are taxonomically the same species Raphanus sativus and are distinguished by varietals both formal and not formal. As I've explained Daikon, 왜무 or 倭- is Japanese radish looks like a giant white carrot. Korean radish 조선무 looks like a boxy football. Check out the google images above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've misread your tone. I am pleased that you've pointed out the difference in radishes. I never knew. I suggest that you edit radish and daikon as you see fit. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG reading this now... Why do editors insist on edit warring when they don't know what they're talking about???? This is where wikipedia fails.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseon Dynasty. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?? I explained all my edits and the revert was a restoration of several editors' work all done in good faith when the Japkto reverted all of our edits wholesale. Could you please mod the discussion when the protection is over so we don't do work only to have a revert warrior revert all our edits?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, I don't care whose edits are right. The point is, reverting other editors repeatedly when you know editors don't agree on the issue is edit warring. Please refrain from doing it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're off base and my edits were not even in question. I restored series of edits made by 3 different editors which was summarily reverted by a single editor all while explaining my self and reverts happening not anywhere near the 3rr limit.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is still edit warring even if it has not passed 3rr (as explained clearly at WP:Edit warring). Edit warring is not acceptable even if you believe your edits are the right ones, as clearly explained in point #2 of the message above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point but it's not just a matter of not passing 3rr. When editors are participating in talk page and explaining edits and you have one guy wholesale reverting edits inexplicably, you can't group that as the same position. I'm merely pointing out context which imo matters even for reverts.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is one that has been reverted time and time again over the past couple years; when you made it you knew it was controversial and you knew you didn't have consensus to do so. (For what it's worth, the other version doesn't yet have consensus either, but it's the version that happened to be in place and you don't have the right to make a controversial change without first seeking consensus. I am not taking sides in which version is right, and personally I don't care which version is chosen; I am merely trying to enforced that you all follow Wikipedia's behavioral rules.)

In case you've already forgotten, I already protected this article twice because of edit warring over this exact sentence (you yourself have made the same revert over a month ago). When I protected the article, I gave everyone 2 weeks to discuss it and work out a consensus, and I stated very clearly that further edit-warring after protection expired would lead to a block. After May 25th you recused yourself from the discussion and did not respond to any of the points that the other editor had made; I stated clearly that, since you had not participated in the discussion, further reverts without discussion would lead to a block.

Since you just made this same revert without any discussion, I have no choice but to block you for edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. 2 reverts in a period of over 1 month is revert warring??? You made one revert and I made one revert so will you be blocking yourself alsoMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand anything that I wrote above, and are just another of the robots who thinks WP:3RR is the only thing that constitutes edit warring. Let me explain it again for you: regardless of the number of reverts you made or the time over which they extended, you deliberately chose not to participate in discussion when you had the chance, and deliberately chose to restore an edit that you knew didn't have consensus and that you knew was going to be disputed. That is edit warring. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are you even ad admin?? LOL. You are resorting to namecalling and distorting facts. I explained my edits at every turn and 2 reverts in over a month does not constitute revert warring. I didn't even mention 3rr bc the number of reverts does not even come CLOSE to invoking the 3rr rule. Good grief.

In any case, you certainly did not explain your revert nor did you have consensus for your revert. You can hand out blocks all you want if that makes you feel better but let's be honest about the facts please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG another case admin abuse. How does this idiot block me for reverting twice in a month when he reverted the same number of times? All this because I removed a self-published source that's not even legitimate reference according WP:CIT. Another case of wikipedia failing. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Melonbarmonster2! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 20:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Melonbarmonster2! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delivered by Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melonbarmonster2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melonbarmonster2. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think you've made a mistake with your edit to the page "taekwondo". Of the nine major schools of taekwondo in post-war Korea, eight were started by men who studied primarily karate, primarily in Japan. I understand that the issue is contentious (especially among Koreans), but it's also been well researched and well documented. For example here http://www.kidokwan.org/articles/the-evolution-of-taekwondo-from-japanese-karate/ and here http://web.stanford.edu/group/Taekwondo/documents/tkd_history.pdf By changing that sentence of the taekwondo history, you've deleted a well-documented and well-established part of the history. In other words, you've introduced bias into the article. Additional references are here: http://taekwondo.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Taekwondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truejim (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melonbarmonster2. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]