- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Request for advice
- 3 apologies on the edit
- 4 Copy and pasting
- 5 August 2015
- 6 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 7 About Greenhorn38
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for July 26
- 9 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 10 Reliable Source
- 11 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 12 Jan Blokhuijsen
Hello, BlackRanger88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! : Noyster (talk), 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but you did edit in a disruptive manner. On the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) page, you continued to delete sourced information despite my many attempts at civil discussion. You undid edits making outrageous claims such as, "disruption is clearly wrong" even though the sources I provided explicitly stated otherwise. Then you attempted to add diction that was not from a neutral point of view despite the fact that it directly contrasted with the sources I provided. Finally, you made an irrelevant request to "show the number of all of Japanese supply ships" even though the source I provided sourced the diction I used. Each of these times, you hastily undid the edits without proper reasoning or consideration for other editors, and for the recent edits, you didn't even bother to try and discuss the issue on the talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Request for advice
Bbb23: Do you have any suggestions on how to pull other editors into the discussion? I've tried submitting a request for comment before, but only got one response, likely due to the complexity of the disputed content. Therefore, it's unlikely that requesting a third opinion will yield any better results. Also, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to add the dispute regarding the result section to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, given that "Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN." The other editor ignored my latest attempts at discussion entirely, making "extensive discussion" impossible. I would really like to get other knowledgeable editors involved, but it doesn't seem like I have many options given the circumstances. BlackRanger88 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ask for assistance at WT:MILHIST
- See if anyone at WT:KOREA wants to comment
- The sources for the various proposed results of the war are very unclear. Can you improve them?
- Are there any English-language sources?
- If you can't get a consensus for 'victory' or 'stalemate' then just leave them out. Report only what actions were taken: e.g. the Japanese army left Korea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll start by adding more English-language sources. Right now, a lot of the sources are Redfoxjump's English translations of Chinese sources. From there, we can just follow the wording of the Academic English sources to avoid further dispute. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused. From what I remember, you didn't really do an RfC. You just labeled a section Request for Comment (or something like that). An RfC has specific procedures to follow: see WP:RFC. Am I wrong?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- @user:Bbb23: I actually did start a request for comment under the "History and Geography" section on 22:44, 7 February 2015. An official Rfc ID was added on 23:00, 7 February 2015. It was open for about a month before it was removed by user:Legobot on 23:00, 9 March 2015. Unfortunately, during the time it was open, only one other editor commented and discussed the issue with me. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
apologies on the edit
just a newbie trying to help out ^^ i made the account today.. not sure how all this editing part of wiki works yet. im an korean american with a lot of ties to japan, which drives my interest in this article. i was just wondering, is there a certain philosophy when editing these articles? like for example, writing or narrative style, or maybe highlighting importance of important figures and so on.
- Don't worry about it. We've all been new at one point :)
- I undid your edit primarily because there were some inaccuracies as I mentioned in the edit summary. For example, Pyongyang was not the capital of Joseon at the time. Hanseong (Seoul) was. Also, mentioning that Pyongyang was the capital of Goguryeo, while correct, was not pertinent to the article in question.
- One thing I would suggest is that if you plan to implement large-scale changes (such as rewriting an entire passage or adding/deleting an entire section) on any article you're editing, it might be a good idea to open up a section on the talk page for other editors to address any concerns they may have with your edit, especially if its an article that many active editors are working on.
- I may have reacted a bit too harshly when I undid your edit, mostly because there has been a history of edit warring and disruptive editing on the page. Consequently, I'm always on the lookout for vandals and POV pushers. Sorry about that.
- Feel free to make revisions! Just always remember to keep your fellow editors in mind. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to email@example.com per WP:CONSENT. It is hard to tell where edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_painting&diff=669681339&oldid=669679608 originates since the bot found it prior to June 2015. We are still getting a sense of the hits and misses. Just between me and you, was this edit original or borrowed? https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=669681339&action=compare&url=http://www.viuzza.net/art/paint-styles-eastern-korean.html I assumed good faith and made no change, but can you please tweak it if necessary, thanks. --Lucas559 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I did take a section from the Korean painting article and placed it in the History of painting article in order to expand on the latter article's scope, but I did change some wording around. However, I did not take the content from the website in question. I will do what I can to tweak the wording if that helps avoid any unnecessary trouble. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Japanese history textbook controversies. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Nihonjoe: Well, I don't think it's fair to call it an edit war on my half since I only undid Redfoxjump's edits once. However, in the interests of all editors involved, I will do my part not to escalate it. It should be noted though, that Redfoxjump's "summary" of the study is clearly cherry-picking, since it fails to mentions the study's criticisms of the textbooks at all. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Collision787 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jinshi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Greetings. The History of Ming is a reliable source which predates other sources. Please do not remove it. Thank you. To remove this source, you need to falsify this sentence 二十五年九月,冬，成桂闻皇太子薨，遣使表慰，并请更国号。帝命仍古号曰朝鲜 in Classical Chinese. Otherwise, I do not see reasonable ways to do it.----Studyroom of Subtraction (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Briefly I observed your tendency of insisting the political Independence of Korea as a tribunal state of China. It is in fact true. What is also in fact true is the information above. Hopefully you will understand. ----Studyroom of Subtraction (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@User:損齋: The problem is that the article contains both sentences, which are presently contradictory. "After much deliberation, king Taejo declared the name of the new dynasty to be "Joseon", after the ancient Korean state of Gojoseon (specifically Gija Joseon)," and "In the late 1392, Goryeo was formally renamed "Joseon" under the edict of Emperor Taizu of Ming.". As of now, I can only confirm the validity of the source in English, unless you can provide a reliable translation.
- The translation is: at the 25th year of Hongwu, Winter. Yi Seong-gye heared about the death of Chinese crown prince. He send his ambassador to express his condolence and made the petition of changing the name (of his country). Hongwu Emperor ordered that the name of this country will be changed to Joseon after its ancient name.
- It is not necessarily contradictory. The two things can be both true since Korea nominally was part of Ming's rule. Yi can also issue his own edict later or before the edict of Ming Emperor. ----損齋 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
I've removed one of the images that the IP editor added and also added text referring to the fact that dog meat consumption is declining. I will not object if you revert this edit, it's just an attempt at compromise. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)