User talk:Chunbum Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Korean Foods[edit]

I'm new to Wiki editing and I do not know what the process is and who really controls the content. I proposed a new section to be created addressing controversial issues regarding Korean food. Please let me know your thoughts on section "Creating a New Sub-Section for "Controversial Korean Foods" and Expansion of "Fish and Seafoods" Santaria360 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks[edit]

This comment on Talk:Liancourt Rocks is not helpful. Please read the guideline assume good faith. I initiated the the last requested move and I made the request because in my opinion it was the best option available. Using a neutral name allows us to present the information in the lead about the islands without emphasising any national perspective, which is fundamental to the presentation of information on Wikipeadia.

Comments such as those you made on Talk:Liancourt Rocks are not helpful because they inflame a sensitive issue and make it more difficult for people to reach a consensus. If you continue to use Talk:Liancourt Rocks to present your personal point of view that other editors have acted in bad faith, I will ban you from editing both the talk page and the article.

As a specific example of where you are out of order you wrote "The article as of September 26, 2010 explicates "Dokdo" in Chinese characters to mean "solitary island," while withholding the more dominant perspective, which would be the "rocky island."" Have you not noticed that the sentence is sourced with a BBC reference and that perhaps that is the reason why the names are translated as they are? If you were to come up with a reliable English language secondary source that contradicted the BBC then both view could be given. But to suggest that it is some sort of pro-Japanese plot is not true (I should know as I added the names and the citation back in May 2007) and making such allegation without a shred of evidence to justify it, will get you topic banned. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful? You know you're spewing out all this "Not helpful" "Please.. assume good faith" "will get you topic banned" stuff like a good Wikipedobot. Why bother? I simply described what was going on in the talk page at that moment, and I don't need to assume good faith when I write the debate guide on Citizendium.
I don't see you or the other admins as reliable. You refuse to examine a valid point I made but instead focus on the issue of "good faith." Isn't it a bit high-handed to think there is nothing fishy about Megaluck and Sharodin95?
My intent is not to prove every individual instances of fake KPOV but to simply observe it as an overall phenomenon. Just as I don't "assume good faith" on sock puppets banned through WP:SOCK, I don't see the likes of Megaluck and Shardon95 as legit. And that goes over to the admins, too, including Nihonjoe who ignored Sharodin95 as a fake KPOV.
"Comments... not helpful they inflame a sensitive issue and make it more difficult reach a consensus" amounts to nothing more than what I've described in Citizendium. How do you know what is consensus if you prevent people from talking about it? It doesn't really matter. (And isn't it just really you who's so keen on inflaming the issue with threats of banning others, even though you know it's pointless?)
On your last point, no in fact I tried to change it, and then it got reverted because it was "controversial." There are other news sources that describe Dokdo as "rocky island." (Chunbum Park (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC))
How could you have tried to change it when you have only made 13 edit to date None of them to the article Liancourt Rocks? -- PBS (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh god. You deleted the whole thread! I'm going to go listen to Citizen Erased by Muse right now. Bye. (Chunbum Park (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC))
"You talk the talk. Do you walk the walk?" You say "in fact I tried to change [the information on the description of the name]" yet when I ask you how could you have tried to change it, you do not explain. Why should anyone believe a word you write, if when asked to prove a simple assertion that you have made, (it is simple to prove (through the edit history of the Liancourt Rocks article) you do not do so?
If you are not willing or unable to prove little things that can be proven quite easily, (you write "while withholding the more dominant perspective, which would be the "rocky island." and that "in fact I tried to change it, and then it got reverted because it was "controversial."" but have not done so) then why should people take anything you write at face value? -- PBS (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You also forgot I balk the balk. Why should I talk to you about anything if my refusal to assume "good faith" with shady users warrants your erasing anything I say whenever you find it to be inconvenient? If you find that to be a negative thing that either offends you or affects the community in a significant way, and you deleted what I copy-pasted from Citizendium and, with that, essentially made the gesture of cutting off dialogue with me, why would you want to talk about anything at all? Or did you not really mean what you said regarding good faith, in which case your removal of the discussion thread would be completely unjustified? (And isn't this what I meant by "Oh god. You deleted the whole thread! I'm going to go listen to Citizen Erased by Muse right now. Bye?")
What 'people' are there to 'believe?' And believe what? What part? You haven't even blinked an eye reading what I pointed out about Megaluck, Sharodin95, and Nihonjoe. You really showed you are willfully ignoring the obvious when you wrote "removing one rant by Megaluck and one comment by Chunbum Park" - just like Nihonjoe. You are simply here to disprove (or find big enough gray spots in) anything I say, prepared with the most critical attitude. When you say 'people,' isn't that just you? By deleting the thread, you showed you want all discussion on this to filter through you only without the involvement of others, and with you dictating what's on the table.
Hey, I don't seek your approval on this issue. The one who will review the contents is Martin Baldwin-Edwards as an Editor in Economics, Politics and Sociology. And I plan to go around shouting what I know from time to time, and that will be end of that. Because truth hurts.
Hint: Yes. I tried to change it, and then it got reverted because it was "controversial." (Chunbum Park (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC))
Putting something in bold does not make it true. You have made several allegation. Some of them are difficult for you to prove. But the edit history of the Liancourt Rocks article is intact, so that is one area where it is quite easy for you to prove what you are saying. If it is the truth then you are quite able to provide evidence through the edit history of the article. As there is no record in the edit history that this used-ID has ever edited the Liancourt Rocks article. Are you claiming that you made the edits with a different ID if so which one and when did you make the edit and which User ID reverted the edit? -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried really hard but failed. I may have made the edit anonymously or through a temporary user account before I made this one. The sole purpose of this account is to maintain my presence in Wikipedia as a Citizendium user. I don't count myself as a "Wikipedian" so I don't think rules like "assuming good faith" should be applied to me in a strict sense. There should be a sort of diplomatic immunity for Citizendium users like myself.
As for the incident, all I remember is that sometime around 2008 to 2009 (maybe early 2010) I made a several changes to the Liancourt Rocks article that I thought were helpful, including spelling, grammar, citation corrections, and among them I included something about Dokdo meaning "rocky island" in Korean. Then someone changed that saying something like "this issue is still being disputed/controversial/etc so let's keep the old way. hope you understand. big smiley face."
I didn't care what happened to the article, but that was impressionistic for me at the time, with me thinking something like "yea that's right those JPOV neutral consensus happy smiley face freaks as always too bad i'm not getting old and all sticky with them."
If there is a mechanism in Wikipedia for deleting history or a glitch with archiving or moving articles that might explain it if it can't be found in history. (Chunbum Park (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

February 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, not quite the right template, but this block is for spamming editor's talk pages with invitations to join Citizendium. You can't do that; I was actually blocked for that once (for spamming links to a Wikia site). If you agree to stop spamming the links, I will immediately unblock you. Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
My intent is to ask people to join Citizendium. If I were to rewrite the invitations uniquely for each person, would that not be considered spamming? Or if I were to write invitations at a week's interval? I "stopped" "spamming" a while ago, anyways. Well as long as I am blocked, I can't write more invitations. (Chunbum Park (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

IP editors[edit]

Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point--no user is required to make an account. It's not about it being difficult, it's that many users intentionally choose not to make an account for their own personal reasons. The only times IPs are not allowed are in strict voting situations that are not directly related to content--i.e., RFA and ArbCom elections. Your personal preference that people make an account holds no weight. If you would like to propose that all people be required to get an account, please go to the Village Pump and propose it there. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to insist that people simply click a few buttons and make a user account for sake of convenience. I won't go to the Vilage Pump. (Chunbum Park (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Insist all you like, but your opinion does not match the consensus opinion across Wikipedia. Thus, it holds no weight. I mean, you could ban IPs from your talk page, but you certainly can't unilaterally ban them from policy/guideline discussions, from editing articles, or from commenting on them, because the consensus of the community is that people do not need to register an account to edit. I also hope you can understand that for some people, it isn't about convenience, its about intentionally choosing to remain "nameless". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Be realistic please. User accounts are equally anonymous as IPs. If they comply, they will comply. Talk all you like, but whether my opinion holds weight won't matter. (Chunbum Park (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Infobox Korean Film[edit]

Hello, I saw your ID on WikiProject and so I thought you might be interested in a debate at Template Talk on the topic of merging Infobox Korean Film into the generic Infobox Film category, deleting the Hangul/hanja/RR/MR information, or keeping it separate (as it currently is). I would appreciate it if you to contribute your thoughts or at least glance over it. The more people looking/thinking about it will give us better ideas as to what should be decided. Thank you. ₪RicknAsia₪ 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Chunbum Park! 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! 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)