User talk:Arstriker

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! NW557Bot (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Kumdo. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Caspian blue 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Kumdo. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Caspian blue 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Kumdo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Caspian blue 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalize? THAT YOU WHO ARE VANDALIZING THE ARTICLES. Now you are just removing cited description without any evidence.Arstriker (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested you to provide "direct quotation" since not everyone can read your mind nor your alleged source. However, you nearly violated 3RR, and your edit led to edit warring, so I removed it to wait for the next move: verification and consensus, and NPOV. Please provide direct quote and translation into English. Moreover, your tried to deceive people with your Korean source that does not cite your claim for Kumdo. That is a form vandalism. Please don't repeat such behavior again.--Caspian blue 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should readn it carefully. The Korean page that I introduced consist that Kumdo is Korean origin. That can be a source of the description "Although a large number of Korean people and Korean organizations claim that kumdo is originated in Korea" in Kumdo. You're just VANDALIZING the article. On the other hand, you accepted some editting Korean side viewpoint with out any inspection. Why? Are you Korean?Arstriker (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your first sentence. Please remind WP:No personal attack and WP:CIVIL that you are totally forgetting. Your edits to the article caused "chaos", so I reverted the "latest edit" before your edit.--Caspian blue 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the sincerity, you should inspect Korean view point editting, and fix it. I think Korean-related articles in Wikipedia is filled with NPOV.Arstriker (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in Kumdo, but just regularly watch the article for housekeeping since it has been one of hot spots for edit warring. I don't see any consensus for your edit given the history and talk page discussion. You can open a discussion to the talk page.--Caspian blue 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you never try to inspect NPOV of the Korean side. You bury wiki by the source which 　isn't objective. It's just you who vandalizing wikipedia.Arstriker (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Japan–Korea disputes. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Caspian blue

The Book of soi is the Chinese historical record. I just introduced the description on it. At least that description have written in that book. However, you removed that as a unreliable source. What part of the Book of soi is unreliable? Is there a basis with which your behavior is lined?Arstriker (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Primary source and the source has been a subject of drama-attract controversies in many Korea-Japan related articles and is not considered "reliable source". Moreover, why are you trying to deceive my eye with this source that does not cite your claim to Kumdo?[1] Please try to get a consensus at the pertinent talk page first.--Caspian blue 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for direct quotations and translation

Since your edits have led to edit warring, my revert to the "status quo" is just a procedural one to resolve the issue. You need to provide "direct quotations" from the Japanese source and English translation to the talk page of Japan-Korea disputes. I can not access the Japanese source nor not everyone can read Japanese, so the onus of burden of proof is yours. If you want to use "primary sources" without secondary scholarly sources' backup and analysis, I can also cite that "Japan was Korea's tributary state" from a Chinese source just like you did. So please engage in "calm" and "mature" discussion. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it but you have keep removing.Arstriker (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any "quotation". Please don't make such bogus accusation. I removed your edit once to Japan-Korea dispute.--Caspian blue 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, unfortunately, your English is too hard to understand, so your wording should be fixed if the content is verified and gets consensus.--Caspian blue 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK keep editting for your vanity and sorry for my bad english.Arstriker (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned not to make personal attacks. Please USE talk pages--Caspian blue 15:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this venue for your edits. Talk:Japan–Korea_disputes#Request_for_direct_quotation_and_English_translation.--Caspian blue 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Arstriker. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Caspian blue 15:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for so many warnings! I'll improve.Arstriker (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Caspian blue 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is relevant to a personal attack? I'm writing only an objective view.--Arstriker (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look up "delusion" in a dictionary if you do not understand why you received the no personal attack warning.--Caspian blue 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for teaching me. I take care it.--Arstriker (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jstf block

Similar editing interests. Since you are also one of the suspected socks in that same SPI, I do not feel at liberty to go into detail while it remains open. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will wait until it closes. Thank you for your reply.--Arstriker (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tsushima, Nagasaki. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue 20:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Dispute incident" does not make any sense. Please look up verbal attack and weasel in an English dictionary. The phase "verbal attacks" are referred in the cited news such as "폭언을 하며... “일본 인종차별주의 단체인 재특회(在特會)와 신풍(新風)이 대마도에서 한국인 여행객들에게 욕설을 하는 동영상”이라며 “이들은 마치 한국인 전원을 도둑으로 매도하고 있다”고 주장했다. Please don't do that.--Caspian blue 20:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tsushima, Nagasaki

Thank you for providing of a source. However, according to the source, an expression of "verbal abuse" or "slander" is appropriate than "verbal attack". And you should not use only "attack" like "Racist attack incident". And it's an original research to assert them "racist" without sources.--Arstriker (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources have been there already. I simply quoted the passages to you since you put the unfit {{weasel-inline}} to the referenced "verbal attack" phrase.I did not provide any new source, nor am the original editor who inserted the sources to the article. Moreover, I restored the "original title", <Racist attacks> and tweaked it by adding "incident". The referenced info is not an original research at all. Your alteration from the verbal attacks to protest is your POV to reduce the degree of the attacks that the right-wing group made. The "dispute incident" is grammatically incorrect which is worse than your preferred title.--Caspian blue 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, an original edit is POV. I just wanted to correct it. We need not persist in an original edit. It is our work that improves it if it is a problem. If "dispute incident" is grammatically incorrect, I do not disagree to change it, however, I disagree POV title such as "Racist attack". Is it referred that they are racists in the source? --Arstriker (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attacks are referred to as "racist attacks" and "verbal attack". I would rather see you to change your preferred title over the "dispute incident" without touching the verbal attack passage. The title is not only grammatically incorrect, but also ambiguous (weasel). Then we can reach some sort of agreement to each other.--Caspian blue 05:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian blue, I found a contributor of youtube named "racist" as a title of video. and I also found subtitle "violent Korean" in that video, but both of them cannot be a reliable source. The source introduce a video as exclusion demonstration, so we should use "Exclusion demonstration" as a title. I will permit "verbal attack", if you agree to this.--Arstriker (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arstriker, as you're well aware that I'm not the original editor. I copy-edited the article because your addition seriously needs to be "re-written" and POV checked. The section at your version still needs more copy-editing and should reduce POV in Korean claim section. If you're blaming for the YouTube clip, you pick the wrong person. You're not permitting anything. That means you're my supervisor or commander which is an inappropriate describing your stance. We're compromising to reduce the level of dispute. You reverted three times, while I'm not. I don't understand what you're saying with "The source introduce a video as exclusion demonstration, so we should use "Exclusion demonstration" as a title." Please make a sense of it.--Caspian blue 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my mistake that I used "permit". I restate it. The source is using "Exclusive demonstration", so we should use "Exclusive demonstration" for the title.--Arstriker (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested new title does not make any sense because not only it is not a summary of the incident but also it is like an advertising comment before the news airs; "Exclusive news!, Dont' miss our hot topic!"--Caspian blue 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important that you think so, but it's important the source using that phrase.--Arstriker (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? Quote the original text. I double checked the two sources, and "Exclusive demonstration" does not appear in any source. Neither is the title of the source nor the video clip. Thus you're insisting on using the title with your original research. It is a highly inappropriate practice.--Caspian blue 07:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Check this "일본 극우단체가 쓰시마를 찾은 한국인 관광객에게 폭언을 하며 추방시위를 벌이는 동영상이 인터넷에 퍼지면서 논란이 되고 있다."[2]--Arstriker (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence does not say anything about "Exclusive demonstration" as you insist.--Caspian blue 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, translate 추방시위 into english.--Arstriker (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, 추방시위 itself does not have its subject and target nor show anything as to why the incident caused the such controversy. I'm wondering why you're reluctant to restore your first alteration of the title. The sources says "Japanese ultra-nationalists" in the title, and according to your abve logic, we should use the source as it is, so I think you would be more happy with the phrase than the "Protest of Japanese nationalists". --Caspian blue 08:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please become sincere. 추방 means "banishment" or "expulsion", and 시위 means "demonstration", so 추방시위 means "exclusive demonstration" or "banishment demonstration". It is obviously a subject of this dispute.--Arstriker (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your translation is "wrong" so ask about it to any Korean reader or even try to use a Korean-Japanese translation tool. Or read this[3] The title omits a lot of information "who did" (일본 극우단체 Japanese ultra-rightwing organization).--Caspian blue 08:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "exclusive" is wrong, however, there is not the mistake in it being written as some kind of demonstrations. So it's title should be "some demonstration". I do not mind if you want to add "Japanese ultra-rightwing organization" to it, like "Demonstration by Japanese ultra-rightwing organization".--Arstriker (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a native English speaker living in Japan to copyedit the article although I'm not sure he would approve that. I think this issue over the subtitle is really not worth fighting for......that's why I've suggested we compromise to "Protests of Japanese nationalists (against Korean tourists)" and take out the {{weasel-inline}} from the "verbal attacks" passage.--Caspian blue 08:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But, I wonder why "Chosen-jin" is pejorative...it may be a one-sided claim.--Arstriker (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSTF

I blocked him because upon further review of the evidence, it looked as if the AIVs had been filed as a retaliatory move for the SPI and that JSTF might well be one of the socks.

It seems you have been cleared, but the conclusion said nothing about JSTF. If he wishes to request unblock I have no opinion, and will leave it to the reviewing admins' judgement.

Since this is the second SPI drama I've been drawn into in as many weeks because someone went to AIV during th investigation, I am not only no longer going to respond to any "Obvious sock of ..." AIVs, I will propose on the talk page that such reports be handled on some other page, as we at AIV rarely have an adequate amount of time to review such reports and so little evidence is submitted. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]