Just curious, are there any other permissions you'd like in addition to extended-confirmed? I noticed your old account also had autopatrolled. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just taking care of some PROD'd articles on Korean footballers, saw your RTV account name and when I looked into it, saw you were now using this username. Nice to see you back! I posted a good-bye message but it was deleted from your User talk page soonafter, apparently because you had requested to keep this page blank. As long as you weren't being harassed or anything, you might go to your previous account and redirect the User and User talk pages here. Glad we have you back! LizRead!Talk!22:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry
I apologize for reverting you at Utoro, Uji. Didn't realize until just shortly ago that it was you. I wrongly concluded from the all caps on the template and the unfamiliar editor name that it was a new user making a test edit of some kind. I'm very, very sorry! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the most well known players in the sport of dodgeball. The point is to help grow the sport. There was no need for it to be changed in the first place. Thatdodgeballguy (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was referenced in many places across the web and would be greatly appreciated for reversion. There was no reason to change it in the first place. Thatdodgeballguy (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONUS, it would be up to YOU to start the discussion on the talk page. Also be aware that BLPs are a contentious topic. I am not sure you meant the tone but it did not sound WP:CIVIL when I read it. CNMall41 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to threatening to escalate to RfC without discussion, you may also may want to review the talk page history where the source you used was already stated not to be reliable for inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that you should post on the talk page of the respective article, not on my talk page. Nobody can see this conversation. And no, I did not mean to be rude, and talking about going to RFC is not a threat. seefooddiet (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others reading, this was my edit comment: "Disagree. If want to undo again, please post on talk page. If this escalates I'm willing to go to WP:RFC; I'm pretty confident in this."
Regardless, I would again suggest checking talk page history prior to being "firm." Threatening to escalate to RfC without discussion (which is the process) is certainly more than "firm" in my opinion. But here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, I just said I didn't intend to be rude, and I think most people would agree I wasn't there. There's no need to rib me with the sarcastic quotes, that's explicitly not civil. User edited their comment.
I read what you wrote and believe it was not your intent. Understand that regardless of intent, the statement was more than firm based on the threat to escalate to RfC in lieu of following the process. And yes, the talk page is where the discussion needs to be had (and already was had if you look at the above link). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly drilling that past talk post into me is also unnecessary.
Please pause for a second. Dial it back. I'm not mad at you and didn't mean to come off rude. Let's please discuss this without drilling things into each other. seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for mentioning the RFC early. It was not meant to be a threat, it was more an expression that I'm confident in my opinion (even with that thread you linked). But your response to this, even after I tried to deescalate, was to continually drill and prod me relentlessly instead of slowing down. I'm still taken aback by how intense your backlash was. seefooddiet (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing needs dialed back. I do not think you intended any harm based on your statement, but stating that intent or not it wasn't appropriate. When an editor says something like that, it can easily be taken as a threat to someone to not restore the content. Maybe you disagree. There's no deescalation needed as there was no escalation. I am not mad at you either as I don't let Wikipedia stir up feelings. As far as "repeatedly drilling," I was reminding of you the past discussion. Since you didn't address it initially after I provided the link, I was assuming you may have missed it. I'm dropping the stick as I don't have time for back and forth but will gladly opine on the talk page should you start the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even this response is needlessly condescending and combative; no effort to accept my apology or deescalate. How are you not seeing how needlessly aggressive your response is in response to a misunderstanding?
Frankly you win; this discussion was so neurotic and I don't have the emotional energy to deal with how neurotic a talk page discussion about Rober will be. I'll link this discussion on Rober's talk page because it's relevant. seefooddiet (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am not understanding the issue. There is no need for an apology. I also was not escalating, only responding to your replies. This isn't a "need to be right" or "win"" situation. I think you can understand how I mistook your tone by the way you are mistaking mine. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But here we are. Unnecessary and meant as a jab.
And yes, the talk page is where the discussion needs to be had (and already was had if you look at the above link). The parenthetical side note here reads sarcastic, the first note about the talk page was sufficient. Furthermore, it leaves no room for discussion; that talk post linked I'd argue is not settled fact, but you present it that way. The wording here was avoidable, not just an innocent reminder.
I'm dropping the stick as I don't have time for back and forth As if my efforts to deescalate are not worth the time.
There is no need for an apology. I also was not escalating, only responding to your replies. Disagree.
I've made no similar jabs to these in this thread. If your next response is just doubling down, I'm not going to reply. Apparently not worth your time anyway, despite the continued responses. seefooddiet (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Korea Herald and other Korean newspapers
I saw from your user page that you are working on Korean articles. When looking at the wiki page for The Korea Herald I saw that it is in a bad state as it relies to heavily on primary sources. At the time I was editing Smilegate and some other korean companies, I found two sources that discuss the Korean Herald to different extents. Since you are interested in Korean articles, I thought you might be interested as a lot of articles probably end up citing this newspaper. I opened a discussion on the talk page here where I go over the sources. In the end, I didn't feel I found enough sources, and I suspect there are much more sources in Korean. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been done; I'm just following Wikipedia policy. If you'd like to keep the article around, you can locate more reliable sources and put them in the deletion discussion. I'll change my vote if you can find more. seefooddiet (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this a bit. The current MOS (not the draft) says to use RR. Even if it doesn't talk about the hyphen, the official RR guidance does. In other words, regardless of which version of the MOS is being applied, hyphens are discouraged. seefooddiet (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, until the whole/partial draft is in production that already explicitly mentions on official RR stand and hyphens on RR usage, before we start to discouraged usage of hyphens in {{Korean}} and {{Infobox Korean name}}. At least, we have an explicitly official English Wikipedia documentation to reference on hyphens in RR on where is it indeed discourage. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)08:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean agree; explaining the edit each time is too cumbersome. I'll hold back on similar hyphen removals until the draft is approved. Thanks for bringing this up! seefooddiet (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously didn't go through them all to check if every single one was made by you, but since they are similar and have similar deletion rationales, I figured that they might be. (From an initial batch of 111 I sifted out one that was prodded by LibStar and one by Simione) If that's the case, it is obviously a misunderstanding or misuse of the WP:PROD process. Do you understand why? It's because people have to have the chance to go through the various candidates, and see if they really are worthy of deletion. Maybe some or even tens of them are, but the possibly good ones are lost in an ocean. 10 prods in a day, maybe, even that is stretching it, but 109 is bordering on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and also looks like some kind of WP:POINT. Editors have to show more diligence than this - and also provide more accurate reasons for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it's a misunderstanding; I apologize. I should have done more due diligence in understanding how PROD works before using it so much.
Thanks. Generally speaking, articles shouldn't be PRODed twice, but you can nominate them for deletion through WP:AFD. Part of the WP:PRODNOM process (prong 4) is to consider alternatives to deletion first, which includes improving the article by editing. I interpret that to mean that the PROD nominator should do a name search of both the English and native name first to see if there are sources. I'm going through them to see which have sourcing now but I'm not sure if I can get to them all. --Habst (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While being mindful of the fact that I didn't do enough due diligence or research before some of these prods, I'm a little skeptical of some of the deproding. [1] Some of these sources given during the deproding aren't very substantial. I may move to a deletion discussion for some of them regardless. seefooddiet (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet, thanks, I think that is fair. Re: the link, Olympedia is actually not a wiki, it's run by Bill Mallon and was officially affiliated with the Olympics at the time that profile was added, so I think it's suitable to use as a source especially when biography prose like the Worlds finishes are added. --Habst (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. It is inappropriate to mass PROD – with no BEFORE whatsoever – well over 100 historical Olympians with the only explanation effectively being 'not notable' (an argument to avoid). I removed the PRODs; I'd say that likely even a majority of those might be notable (given South Korea seems to have decent coverage of their Olympians), especially if one were to actually look in the appropriate places (e.g. South Korean newspaper archives). You can AFD some of them now that they've been dePRODed, but please do some sort of BEFORE search next time and make sure you're doing it in a reasonable quantity; no one is going to be able to sort through the notable ones when there's over 100 nominated rapidly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some fixes of "the the", and I noticed one of your AWB edits changed:
According to the [[Korea Times]]
to
According to the [[The Korea Times]]
I just wanted to say those automatic redirect replacements should be used with care and ideally individually checked when you have them enabled in an edit. Not a big deal, just something worth keeping in mind with AWB functions that change prose. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I really do check every individual change; I just make some mistakes. I'll add a line in my script to check for that error. seefooddiet (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 3
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Please do not merge Dex Kim Jin Young to his Korean wikipedia, Dex (Youtuber). The fans asked for an International wikipedia page for Dex since they are unable to search for the korean wiki in english on Google. Moreover, the DEX Kim Jin Young page has more updated and detailed facts about Dex. Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or if all the details on the DEX Kim Jin Young page can be transferred, and the fans could search his wikipedia page in english, that would be great. Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An international wikipedia page would mean - searching Dex's name in english and his wikipedia page showing up. Anyway, if that could be done, I couldn't care less if the article gets deleted. All the fans wanted is just to have a searchable wikipedia page for Dex as they thought he is famous enough to have one. Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to do it; Wikipedia's reputation for rigor also impacts my own writing on the website and I was in a unique position to contribute as a Korean speaker. seefooddiet (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyeongchon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dongan District.
Hi seefooddiet, your AWB cleanup script is sometimes adding |trans-script-title= to citation templates instead of |script-title= (example). That isn't a valid parameter, so it's causing CS1 errors. Please fix the script to not cause errors. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sang-sup Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Cultural Merit.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I have a lot of projects I'm currently working on, and I suspect other people are likely to take on this topic (both non-Koreans and Koreans are widely interested in the topic and public knowledge of it is relatively high), so my motivation to work on it is a little lower. If I do take this on it'll be at least 3-4 months later. seefooddiet (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Oh Hee-ok
On 24 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oh Hee-ok, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Oh Hee-ok was the last surviving female Korean independence activist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oh Hee-ok. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oh Hee-ok), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 28 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doori Land, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a South Korean actor sold his belongings and went $7 million into debt to keep his amusement park running? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doori Land. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Doori Land), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
_by_Ron.jpg)
