User talk:Chunbum Park

Korean Foods

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)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine#Creating_a_New_Sub-Section_for_.22Controversial_Korean_Foods.22_and_Expansion_of_.22Fish_and_Seafoods.22

Liancourt Rocks

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)[reply]

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 ...to 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

"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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

February 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

IP editors

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Infobox Korean Film

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)[reply]

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

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)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Liancourt Rocks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dokdo: Sovereignty is not relevant

Wikipedia article titles are not decided by who has sovereignty over something, so there's no point trying to prove at the RfC. Siuenti (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Seeing that you are a rather obvious re-incarnation of Wikimachine (talk · contribs), that you started editing with this new account while still evading a block on that old account (which had been lengthened because of repeated sockpuppetry previously), and that you have spent virtually all your time here continuing the same kind of POV advocacy that you got sanctioned for earlier, I am reblocking this account, indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never committed any sock puppetry whatsoever, and I never edited on Wikipedia except through this account. I also stated that Wikimachine was me, and there was no evading on my part as the one year ban was fully served. You are overreacting. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Also it's not wrong to have a different view if that view is true, and I never engaged in personal attack or disruptive editing or edit war with this account. I plan to keep it that way. You are punishing a good man for no reason. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You must look at my edit history. I never edited anything with this account when the ban was in place. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

When did I commit sock puppetry? Can you please give me the link to evidence? It's not wrong to have a different view. I am going to keep all my edits in discussion. No edit war or personal attacks - do you understand me? (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chunbum Park (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

never evaded ban, see edit history, never sock puppet, am civil and no edit war. clean account. see talk

Decline reason:

See WP:SCRUTINY: "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. ...it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." You were blocked a number of times because of your disruption and socking on articles relating to what you are editing now. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't know how to log onto account of Wikimachine because it's been so long since I last logged on. (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) I was not aware of such policy, and I intend to only edit with this account. I also stated Wikimachine was me in my edits. All this is complete nonsense. (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) And it's not disruption but discussion. You cannot silence someone for merely having a different opinion. (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) I never engaged in edit war or personal attack with this account. There was no disruption. Only discussion. You are misleading. (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Also indefinite is too severe? (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Please link me to all instances of me editing through sock puppetry. I cannot remember any instance. (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

All this was more than a decade ago. You are going to punish me life-long for something that happened a decade ago that I cannot remember? What are the conditions for unbanning? I cannot concede changing my opinion on the issue being disputed. I am entitled to my own opinions, and as long as I keep it to a civil and reasonable discussion with no edit war or personal attack, it should be fine. (Chunbum Park (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The socking is documented here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive17#Wikimachine.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I believe you when you say that you can't log into your Wikimachine account. Future Perfect at Sunrise, is the only reason for the block because of WP:SCRUTINY? If so, can this account be unblocked with the stipulation that a link to the old account appear on the user page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been when I was in high school. I did not know what I was doing. I will apologize for having made sarcastic edits, although I frankly have no memory of doing it. (Chunbum Park (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

NeilN: no, it's not just the scrutiny thing. As an aside, Chunbum Park said above that he himself disclosed the identity with the earlier account somewhere; if he did, I'd like to see a diff, as I certainly didn't find such a disclosure anywhere. That said, there was, formally, an element of sockpuppetry at the beginning of this account, as he made a few edits with it before his latest block expired. Although, admittedly, when you take only relevant edits in the content area into account, the overlap was only by a few weeks and it was several years ago, so that by itself would also not have been a reason to block. The main reason for the block is indeed the continuity of behaviour. Throughout the years that this new account was active here (on and off), and very much during his latest bout of editing since March 2017, this user has been displaying the exact same pattern of disruptive behaviour that got him Arbcom-banned back in 2007: persistent POV advocacy in talkpage debates, stubborn insistence on misusing those debates for arguing why Korea is right and Japan is wrong, and a complete and utter refusal to take any advice on board about why that isn't what Wikipedians are supposed to do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Disclosure here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am entitled to different opinions. Again, as I said, I won't edit war or throw insults. I am here down for real business of dialogue. Nihonjoe demanded real evidence, and I provided 4 links that are reliable sources. I am going to continue discussion backed up by real evidence. Again, I am entitled to my own opinions. I am a human being after all. I believe I am right, and yes Japan is wrongly claiming the islets for its own self interest, but I will only engage in discussion to explain why. Nothing more and nothing less. So what if Japan is wrong on many historical issues in relation to its neighbor? As Wikimachine, I was responding to the likes of Opp2, Komdori and LactoseTI who made antagonizing moves. It was completely unfair that the Arb Committee singled me out when I was not the villain but a victim of their nationalistic and unreasonable behavior. There is no more worry for that happening again as the article is now being closely watched. I can list many ways Opp2, komdori and LactoseTI erred me. Do you want me to explain? They would put Japanese flag above Korean flag and their excuse was alphabetical order. They would form fake consensus by agreeing among the three of them and slipping in edits that were completely outrageous (as they were later removed). They would do this and mucg more. I was victim, not the aggressor, of their taunting and passive aggression. Amd the Arb Comm did not see it that way. How sad it was. I was a Wikipedian all the way until it happened. I think I deserve an apology for being banned for responding to their passive aggression. I will not change my views. I can change my way to civil dialogue if everyone remains civil. That is all. (Chunbum Park (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

LactoseTI, Komdori, and Opp2 had dealt me a great defeat, pain and anger. That's what prompted me to go to Citizendium to write about Dokdo and other topics to my heart's content, without anyone meddling in my affairs and giving me a hard time. I have a good standing in Citizendium. I believe I can have a good standing in Wikipedia too, if this environment of oversight by the admins continues. If you unblock me, yes I will be able to make my case heard in Liancourt Rocks discussion page, but don't think of that as a bad thing. I am simply trying to convince you of why I believe I am right. I will provide a case backed by evidence, as I have until now. (I provided 4 links that are reliable sources, not simply Korean news outlets). But for some reason, Nihonjoe won't read my sources and dismisses them as being angry pro-Korean sites, which they are not. If you look into them, you will see they are reliable sources, and they reflect my view on this matter. If you unblock me, you won't be just helping me out. You will have won back a Wikipedian. (Chunbum Park (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chunbum Park (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there was discussion, not disruption. i cant and wont log into my old account. it was me who openly mentioned my old account. was not aware of such policy. served 1 year ban full time. it was a decade ago. see talk

Decline reason:

I don't think I could say it much better that Future Perfect at Sunrise did above: "Throughout the years that this new account was active here (on and off), and very much during his latest bout of editing since March 2017, this user has been displaying the exact same pattern of disruptive behaviour that got him Arbcom-banned back in 2007: persistent POV advocacy in talkpage debates, stubborn insistence on misusing those debates for arguing why Korea is right and Japan is wrong, and a complete and utter refusal to take any advice on board about why that isn't what Wikipedians are supposed to do here." Being banned for a year did nothing to change your attitude, and everything you say indicates that you have no intention of changing it now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Then your ban is illegitimate. You cannot ban someone for having a different opinion. You can ban someone for edit warring or personal attack but having POV especially if it's right cannot be a criterion for ban. (Chunbum Park (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Have you tried actually reading what is written to you, rather than reading something which is not there? To the best of my knowledge nobody has said anywhere that your block is because of holding any opinions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you mean by "attitude"? I have not displayed any disruptive behavior other than holding an opinion that Korea has stronger claim to the islets of Dokdo than Japan? I have backed up my claim with evidence. (Chunbum Park (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I repeat. I am being banned for "pov advocacy" aka holding a different opinion. This ban is illegitimate. (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I want Nihonjoe to look into this ban. (Chunbum Park (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]