User talk:KieferFL

Redxx

Now what does my daughter say...? Aah yes "Message virginity!"
I'm lurking in the background atm and keeping an eye on the ongoing debate re the LyricWiki article (which I personally feel needs a bit more in the way of content scroll to the bottom). Btw I enjoyed reading your comments. I also like your attitude to this. Things like this can sometimes take on a greater importance than is healthy, so it's good that we've got you to remind us of that.  _♫ Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 02:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dialogue Among Civilizations edits

A reference has been added for diversity part. I consider the massive of the removal of text from the page as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk • contribs)

It's not vandalism. I gave my reasonings on your talk page for the deletions and you chose not to talk about the change in return. Other editors appear to agree to the removals. Do you have a response to the massive cut-and-pasting that was done? If so, there is a discussion going on on the Talk page. KieferFL (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

I want you to take your concern to the talk page because you have removed a lot of info against several users' wishes. You should be careful not to violate 3RR and you have reverted 3 times. So this is both suggestion and 3RR warning. I'm not a big fan of economics and politics, so I would not participate in a discussion regarding the current dispute. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have this topic placed on the talk page, having placed it there directly after my first edit, but sadly no one has commented. (So, I'm not sure as to the "several users' wishes" part.) Also, you seem to have miscounted, as I haven't reverted 3 times. I have reverted the Economy section twice, and only because User:Wondergirls has reverted those edits twice now without discussion in the open forum. I have also left a note on Wondergirls' talk page asking for discussion on the South Korea talk page. (No response yet, although it's only been a few hours.) At any rate, the additions that this user is insisting on are plainly non-neutral, as they are picking and choosing their comparisons in order to make South Korea appear stronger in a number of categories than perhaps it is. Please note that I removed no actual subject matter from that section. I only removed the "better than" comparisons and a couple of sentences that were essentially repeats of previous material. KieferFL (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not checked on the reverts except counting the number because as I said I don't really care about the info regarding "economics". There were pretty ugly edit wars going on in past two days, and "several people" commented against a very uncivil editor's edits. Your edits sound no problem to me though.--Caspian blue 06:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to some of your claims and appreciate your suggestions but I would like to point out that you have removed literally all statistics and some of them are clearly appropriate. I've deliberately put life expectancy "in comparison to other advanced economies" to make it clear - the comparisons give a clear indication of the progress S Korea has made and is not a POV. You can find such comparisons in almost all economy section of country articles, such as that one in Portugal. In other words, some comparisons are appropriate and should not be completely removed. As I say, you reverted all of my edits, so I did agree with some of your edits, which I left out or reworded in an appropriate manner. I do agree with the picky statistics, and removed comparisons in industrial outputs. For all comparisons made, I included reason why it is made, so it is made clear that it is not a POV. Some of your claims are vague, such as "due to its healthy manufacturing base", which clearly points to original research. You have also removed the IMF forecasts without a valid reason, which is clearly appropriate to show where S Korea is heading right now and useful in demonstrating the speed at which it is growing. I do agree to the technology section and removed some comparisons. My point is that you can't remove all the statistics just because you/or some Wikipedia readers think it is making comparisons - achievements should be recognized and the best way to do so is through comparison. If you have an issue with my new edit, please feel free to talk to me but be very specific about what you disagree with. Thanks. Wondergirls (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is something that should be discussed in the open forum of the South Korea talk page. I have asked for discussion there since the first edit, and on your talk page and you've ignored that request. You have now reverted these changes 3 times without discussion. I will be happy to discuss specific issues on the appropriate talk page. KieferFL (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

ooops due to edit conflict I may have messed up your last edit..

let me check the diffs and see if I can put it right.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I basically reverted the edits that User:Lakshmix made without discussing these differences, even though everything is on the talk page and I have personally invited him to discuss things there.

I have a question about the recent edit that you made, though. I saw that you changed the one sentence to read "the second most advanced democracy in Asia." I'm not sure that the distinction is necessary, as the index difference between Japan and South Korea is only 0.24. The previous version is accurate and doesn't add more unnecessary comparisons to the page. There really is too much "South Korea is best in this, not best in that" throughout the article. The casual reader looking for an introduction to South Korea won't really care if South Korea is the second most advanced democracy, but that it is one of only two highly functioning democracies in the region is significant because it means that S.Korea is in some way essentially different than all but one of the other countries in the region. Hope that I'm explaining myself well. I don't plan on changing what you wrote, but I am concerned that others will have a problem with the re-wording, and perhaps rightfully so. Thanks for the note, and thank you for the chance to discuss this. KieferFL (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR

both you and I might be getting close to 3RR, so lets take a moment to reflect..

better to be patient in getting the article perfect than to get blocked for 3RR.

also has Lakshmix just broken 3RR?? I will count the reverts.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only reverted his edits once. Wondergirls previously reverted my edits 3 times, but I stopped at two reverts and then added the monster edit list to the talk page, explaining everything, and have slowly added items back in so that if any one of them is particularly troublesome, that the offended person can join in a discussion with everyone on the talk page about it. Lakshmix appears to not want to talk, as he reverted without discussion even after I asked him to the talk page. So, that's how it goes, I guess. KieferFL (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to my previous involvement on articles relating to Korea/Japan I am always going to be accused of anti-Korean, pro-Japanese bias - just as some of the other editors are going to be accused of anti-Japanese/Chinese, pro-Korean bias - in some articles (WW2 related/territory disputes) this is going to make major issues and the results are blocks/locked articles, however in this article it seems quite clear - I'm sure there are citations saying all manner of wonderful things, however there are a lot of terms that are overly positive and there is a huge undue weight issue - the facts are not really disputed, just the way the facts are portrayed. Overall it is a good article, perhaps dangling the carrot of "this could be a featured article" in front of the editors involved might get the language toned down a little and could bump the quality of the article up a level or two. It is going to be a pain, there will always be one editor who wants to add something overly positive due to nationalistic pride - that comes down to human nature and a lack of understand about what wikipedia should and should not be, but whatever, with some common sense and a little outside opinion this could end up being a good article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another note

Please remind of the WP:3RR rule because you have reverted 3 times as have Lakshmix (talk · contribs) and 130.113.81.33 (talk · contribs). However, I generally agree with your edits except the exclusion of Samsung and LG in High-tech industries which I think should be mentioned in the article; the article still needs to be cleaned up for NPOV. --Caspian blue 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As always, I invite each editor to the Talk:South Korea page to discuss any issues they have with my good faith edits. So far, only one point has been discussed and apparently abandoned by the editor, but time after time my edits are reverted (no matter what they are, large or small.) Ownership on this page is running rampant, I'm afraid. Too many people in the South Korea-related articles seem to have an agenda besides making a good article. It's sad, really.

As for the "exclusion of Samsung and LG in High-tech industries", I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I can remember, I haven't actually removed anything having to do with Samsung or LG. I have, however, removed many of the links to their Wikipedia page, as they were in the section MULTIPLE times which is contrary to the Manual of Style. If you can give me an example, I'd be glad to either explain the change (if I did intend to make the edit) or return it to the page (if it was removed in error). KieferFL (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

South Korea article

I am shocked to see that an article of a country that is not a insignificant power is in such a poor state. It is probably the worse case of POV I have seen out of all notable articles. This page is riddled with inaccuracies and erroneous remarks about how Seoul is an international financial city (which it isn't), South Korea has a trillion dollar economy (which it does not), etc etc. This is on top of the egregious POV. A POV tag for the whole article is completely justified. You are doing a good job trying to sort through this mess. It probably needs a major rewrite anyhow but the nationalists are definitely hindering any progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.81.33 (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I'm going to try to help you and others with cleaning up and adding to the South Korea page. However, as I'm still quite new, I'll need some help (with formatting, templates, and lots of other things, I'm sure.) In the meantime, I'm going to go over the page a couple of times and then do things slowly: first on the talk page, and then hopefully on the article page. One thing that already is apparent to me is that some of the citations link to rather old (more than ten years) pages/articles, and others seem...mismatched.

For example, just in the second paragraph you can find a reference to a Canadian museum which never states (via a direct quote or paraphrasing) that "Korea is one of the oldest civilizations in the world." In fact, the page is just for a past art exhibit. Also, (same section, different paragraph) Korea is listed as a "major economic power." Yet, the news article is more than ten years old--before the Asian Economic Crisis--and goes on to say that the (then) Korean government is going to fix a collapsing economy. At any rate, I look forward to working on the page and building consensus. This page needs some work, but it could be great. Oh, and although this comment is completely unrelated to the above rant (in both tone and content) I didn't want to start another sub-heading on an already lengthy talk page. RlndGunslinger (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be thrilled to have someone to work on this article with. I have followed a number of links, and in some instances the reference is indeed questionable. One link (I think it is still there, and is on my list of items to get removed) refers to a speech by President Bush because he said something complimentary about South Korea. That is "proof" that Korea is whatever superlative was used. So, I know what you mean. My first task was removing much of the non-neutral language, as well as the huge number of unnecessary links. But there are a few sections where fewer/more representative pictures should be used, and the introductory paragraph at the top is much too dense with information. The Economy section is also much too dense and difficult to read, but there are likely to be those that don't want any of that information removed, because they have references. I think convincing some that just because it may be true and has references doesn't mean that it has to be included might be a bit of a challenge. The man in black has workers here.  :-]

At any rate, feel free to add some items to the talk page for discussion. Lately I've been putting up a list, letting it sit 12-24 hours, and if there are no replies and I don't think that anyone will have a problem with the changes, I add the Editprotected template. KieferFL (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Do you mean for your talk page to redirect? KieferFL (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

KieferFL, you're doing great. It is shame that other editors against your cleanup edits are reluctant to discuss disputes with you. I think you're neutral and doing the job from good faith. But you must be very careful about people who previously edited the article with their biases seem to be coming to you. Anyway, I'm very curious as to why Heroeswithmetaphors (talk · contribs) edited the user page of RlndGunslinger (talk · contribs) and made the page redirected to Talk:US beef imports in South Korea#Citing sources[1] without any permission nor courtesy note to the owner? Interesting thing is Heroeswithmetaphors also did the same thing to his talk page.[2]. Really funny. --Caspian blue 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspianblue, KieferFL, thank you for the heads-up; I had no idea my talk page had been redirectd. (I guess that means I should check it more often, huh?) I thought a bot had done the redirect, but if Heroeswithmetaphors did it, I'd like to know why...maybe Heroes thinks I've got some agenda or something? That's not fair to them, Heroes helped me out in the past. Could have been a formatting mistake? RlndGunslinger (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the date & time stamps, it looks as if HeroesWM redirected your talk page so that you would see the note that was left on that page. Personally, I don't think that's a good way to handle things, simply because if I wasn't paying attention, I would have thought that that page was your personal talk page. I could have written something there that would have confused the other editors there and you probably never would have seen it. HeroesWM seems to like redirecting his User page to various policy-type pages. I guess that's one way to not have to put anything personal on your User page. To each their own, I guess. KieferFL (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I can keep an eye on it. I have no particular knowledge of South Korea, but I do consider myself fairly literate in legal and financial issues, which is why I participate in those RFCs. The diffs made it look like you were obliterating all mention of significant Korean corporations, but actually examining the whole articles made it clear that you were just deleting superfluous praise.

I'll add it to my watchlist, at least. Cool Hand Luke 01:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Keifer, concerning the current proposal (#6) how about I remove the two questionable segments so that EncMaster can get the ball rolling? In the meantime you, me, and the other editors can talk about the other changes. This way we can get some more positive changes in before the protection deadline (which is next week, I think.) Happy New Year! RlndGunslinger (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you're enjoying a vacation, (rather than being stuck at work like me,) but you've missed a lot of developments on the South Korea page. Aside from the busy talk page, I've seen seven edits already on the main page now, and it's only be unprotected for a few hours...this could get bad. Also, I've noticed that links to developed country are being added like crazy. This wouldn't be notable except that several Korean are now re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic the table notes and definitions so that South Korea shows up in the top thirty of all the lists. :( RlndGunslinger (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lakshmix/Wondergirls

ever get the feeling that they are one and the same?

for both of them, their favourite article is South Korea, they have both contributed on BRIC, on Samsung and weirdly enough they have both contributed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College_School ..kinda strange..

Also my edit was reverted by Wondergirls with the summary "you are Japanese and continuously vandalizing Korean-related articles" while Lakshmix has made reverts with the following summaries : "You are Russian/Japanese and clearly anti-Korean, don't break WP:POV rules" and "You are Chinese and your past edits are all anti-Korean"

do I have an overactive imagination, or do they seem like the same editor to you? Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are. (Or at the very least know each other in "real" life.) They have very similar grammar structures and editing styles. They don't "talk" to each other, either, even though they have the same interests and opinions. KieferFL (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ziggymaster

User:Ziggymaster has been reverting the proposals on the South Korea talk page without any accompanying edit summaries or notes. Now that protection is gone, he has also recommenced the adding of wiki-link after wiki-link. I'm going to politely ask him to talk on the Talk page for the article, but given the nature of his (brand new) account as well as notices on his talk page (already, after only one month) for POV-pushing, I have a sinking feeling he's not going to listen to reason... RlndGunslinger (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LyricWiki Incident

I replied on my talk page. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LETTING ME KNOW!--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for defending my name in an off-Wikipedia incident. You also hold the distinction of being the first user ever to receive a barnstar from me.The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm truly honored. My first barnstar here...Thanks! KieferFL (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, KieferFL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)