User talk:Kuebie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:21, 4 December 2008

South Korea

Kuebie, being classified as one of the "Next Eleven" countries is not something to be proud of. It means South Korea is still considered as one of the developing countries (hoo jin gook) such as Bangladesh and Vietnam. It also contradicts the page's explanation that Korea has an advanced economy. Could you delete the "next eleven" part? Pres-T-G-us (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well some people consider South Korea to be a developing country. Kuebie (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you realize that being one of the "Next Eleven" is the same as being classified as a developing country. Thus I assume that you will agree to not mention the "Next Eleven" part if you agree that S.Korea is a developed country. Let me ask you one question. If S.Korea were not a developed country, why would FTSE, IMF and World Bank classify S.Korea as a developed country? I do not think it is logical to ignore this classification of these international organizations. Pres-T-G-us (talk)

Joyeong

there is more evidence that suggests that Joyeong was a malgal, than he was General of Goguryeo, but maybe it's both. Odst 23:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Military history of Goguryeo, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Also please read WP:AN3

Your recently appeared to these reverts [1], [2] are considered Vandalism. I had already noticed you on talk page twice. [3], [4] Please be careful not to continue such as these disruptive immediately reverts.

By the way, I suspect you may be a sockpuppet of someone. As your contributions, you seem to be a disruptive single-purpose account for the sake of revert edit without any constructive edit. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.--Watermint 07:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, I don't want to see articles about Korea continually being bastardized by white-bred Chinese nationalists. Kuebie 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in the old one, given by Watermint (talk · contribs). What an hilarious statement of him (what a contradictory as well), because he was suspected of using sockpuppetry/or being an indefinitely banned user (also definitely meatpuppetry, plotting from Commons and Japanese Wikipedia) and gave some a treat to another? The world is filled with wonders :D--Appletrees (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You're an established editor, so I don't give the 3RR warning sign. But please be careful about the policy, Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Kuebie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

When you are in dispute, could you leave a warning if your opponent or new user would face a WP:3RR violation? That would prevent any unnecessary edit wars developed. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr rule

You violated 3rr rule in Gaya confederacy‎. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.--Propastop (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Korean swordsmanship

First, the murder of the empress has nothing to do with the article, Korean swordsmanship. Second, Editing Agency of Korean History was not an organization which had rights to outlaw anything. If you want to keep the sentence, you have to show how, when, what kind of culture it outlawed with information sources. Third, as for the sentence "Japan begins a policy of eradication of Korean culture," it may be true that Korean culture was eradicated practically. But you need to show an information source which says Japan had a "policy" of edadication of it. Fourth, you believe that Kumdo or Gumdo was merged into Kendo, but before being under Japanese influence, the word kumdo did not exist. It is odd to say that Kumdo was merged into Kendo. Actually, Korean swordsmanship, which Koreans believe in, was completely ignored and Kumdo during the occupation is completely identical to Kendo. Koreans started to merge Korean swordsmanship into Kendo after WWII and made it Kumdo. If you want to say Kumdo was merged into Kendo, you must show your information source. Before reverting the article, you must show us your information sources. Please do not edit the article without it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ignore me! Ignoring can be a reson for blocking. So please be careful!

As I said, the murder of the empress does not have anything to do with Korean swordsmanship. Please explain why you think this information is necessary for the article.

Japanese Agency for Editing of Korean History is not a kind of organization which has political rights to outlaw anything. If you want to add information of the Agency, please show us evidence that the Agency outlawed Korean martical arts. How? When? What martial arts?

I added {{fact}} to the sentences which have no sources. Before adding sources, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE {{FACT}}.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe it. You reverted the edit again and called my edit vandalism althogh you never even reply to me. If you think you're right, do to the talk page and leave your comment. What you are doing can cause you to be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion at dojang too. DO NOT IGNORE ME ANY MORE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE RIGHT!! DO NOT REVERT THE EDIT ANY MORE IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO ATTEND THE DISCUSSION!! OK? All you do is only to revert the edit without discussion. You're also against the 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution for 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaya confederacy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Korean swordsmanship. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Dojang. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.--Bentecbye (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Tribute. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.--Bentecbye (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you here because you kept reverting edits although you were warned in August. You never reply to anyone either.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And before you say it, the reverts you made were not vandalism, it was a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution for 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaya confederacy,Tribute]],Baekje. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. What is the deletion reason?

Do not describe false translation.[5]
Do not hide the fact.[6]
Write the opinion as an opinion.Do not write an opinion as a fact.The opinion is different from fact.[7]Read thisWikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements

--Bentecbye (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note about tag team editing

Situations of house mates/co-workers/associates and sock puppetry/meat puppetry/tag team editing can be indistinguishable because in all of those cases the editors will appear to be connected by technical evidence For the purposes of Wikipedia, a group of editors who edit towards the same point of view, and are otherwise indistinguishable from one another can be viewed as a single editor for the purposes of applying policy.

I recommend that you and your close associates not support each other in editorial disputes. Tag team editing tends to subvert consensus and may provide an unfair advantage over other editors who might not agree with your editorial position. Wikipedia has a very large number of articles. I am sure you all can happily find things to edit, while avoiding tag team editing. Please review the results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 07:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR REVERT

Stop meaningless revert.Gaya confederacy,Gwanggaeto Stele,Baekje,Tribute

Please YOU discuss on talk page BEFORE reverting the page.--Propastop (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaya confederacy,Tribute,Baekje,Gwanggaeto Stele. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.

Dont mention false information intentionally[8][9].

READ WP:SUBSTANTIATE and Submit the source of your remark. [10]

don't delete sourced material without proper reason.[11]

Discuss on discussion page BEFORE reverting the page.--Propastop (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaya

Please stop editting like this[12]. The theory that Gaya was not a military outpost of Japan during the Yamato period is not an established theory. Please stop removing the names of the scholars. The names of the scholars make the article more neutral and reliable.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baekje

"Most likely the origin of Japan as a state lies in Korea. "Peakche of Korea and the origin of Yamato Japan" is the standard most historians follow." This is not true. It is true that there are some historians who claim such a thing, but it is not true that "most historians follow" that claim. I removed these sentences because of that. This is an original research. Wikipedia should not write something so doubtful or it has to mention every existing theory.

I find no reason to hide the information on Chinese and Japanese study on Gwanggaeto Stele. Although there are scholars who controvert the Conspiracy theories, stating only the information on Korean study on the stele is not fair.

Tell me the reason why you had to revert my edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

Good work on Korea articles. Unfortunately there are many Japanese and Chinese nationalists out there who have nothing better to do than to introduce their propaganda. Novidmarana (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with dead links

Don't delete dead links. Instead, mark them with the {{Deadlink}} template. See WP:DEADREF for more information. Anyway, I fixed Koreans and Koreans in the Philippines with better references. cab (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo Reverts

You keep undoing my changes for which I'm just reverting to an acceptable form of the compromise introduction paragraph agreed to in 2007. Please explain your rationale for overturning previously agreed upon compromises. WangKon936 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagello's edits were acceptable. Kuebie (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But not part of the compromise reached last year. WangKon936 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goguryeo#Intro_Paragraph for more info on what was previously agreed upon by broad consensus. WangKon936 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such things are dismissive and susceptible to change. Kuebie (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Koreans has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lazylaces (Talk to me 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important note

No more revert please. In a current trend, admins do not care about whether contested information is in original research or not; they tend to block anyone who violates 3RR or makes edit wars. So this is a note for you to prevent from violating 3RR. Regards.--Caspian blue 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine thanks. Kuebie (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koreans

ive already removed original research, plus i reworded it so its not directly copied from the source, and ive already removed instances of the word "chinese", but you apparantly has a problem with the source, which includes data compiled IN korea BY Koreans.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Koreans. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Maybe you did not know, but Caspian Blue has made a report stating that you broke the 3RR rule.

The report is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Mustafa_Kemal_Atat.C3.BCrk_and_Kuebie_reported_by_Caspian_blue_.28Result:_.29

I was suprised that Caspian did not inform you that he reported you, I would recommend that if you make a report against someone, it is only fair/polite to inform them of the report.

You should take a look at the report and comment if you feel the need.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]