Michael Friedrich~enwiki (talk | contribs) |
Manacpowers (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
:I used the talk page many times but he never responded to me until today.--[[User:Michael Friedrich|Michael Friedrich]] ([[User talk:Michael Friedrich#top|talk]]) 12:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
:I used the talk page many times but he never responded to me until today.--[[User:Michael Friedrich|Michael Friedrich]] ([[User talk:Michael Friedrich#top|talk]]) 12:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
=== 3rr rule == |
|||
[[Image:Stop hand.svg|30px|left|Warning]] |
|||
You violated 3rr rule in [[Kumdo]], |
|||
You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]] according to the reverts. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors.--[[User:Manacpowers|Manacpowers]] ([[User talk:Manacpowers|talk]]) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:59, 6 September 2008
My Neighbor Totoro
Your unexplained removal of content has been reverted. If you wish to remove entire sections, I recommend that you first discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Michael. I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please mediate
Hello. The Kofun Period of Japan has received destruction[2]. I need your mediation. Could you help? --Princesunta (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Image uploads
Please do not upload copyrighted images and claim they are your own work. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are talking about. When did I upload copyrited images and claim they are my own work?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The message related to the following images, now deleted:
- Thanks. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you're talking about such old things now. I don't even remember when I uploaded those photos. Maybe two and a half years ago? Those photos were deleted two years ago and I have not uploaded any photos since then. There's no need for you to warn me not to upload copyrighted ones. If you want to warn me, go back to 2 and a half years ago by time machine. Did I claim they were my own work? Sorry but I don't remember. And what are you thinking you are? It sounds as if you were a police officer of wikipedia or something.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Copyrighted bashing images
It is regretful to see your "foolish" complaint about your obvious fault. That seems to me you excuse your wrongdoing by time. Besides, I don't think, Stifle apologized to you. Sorry has two distinct meanings. You not only violated the image policy, but also lied about those images being yours. The motivation of uploading image were viewed as "bashing images" by several admins. Stifle was not the only admin to delete your images so you earned the rightful warning. Then you would not repeat your "mistake" again. Please don't do that. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your wrongdoing had been never pointed out until fairly recently. For two years, your copyrighted photos had been in Wikipedia, that is degrading the reputation of the community. So it should be noted and then you're warned. You're a grown-up, so you're excusing yourself as "kid" is totally unreasonable. Besides, I'm not you.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
August 2008
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Caspian blue in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Nate1481(t/c) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I did not know the rules. Sorry. But I though he would reply to me if I wrote in Korean although he had kept ignoring me.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Your visit
Because I know you're very persistent per your last visits on my talk page, I don't like talking a matter with you at my talk page. Besides, the discussion should be addressed at the relevant talk page first. Removing a message is not rude, and everybody do according to WP:USER, so please do not falsely accuse me. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why do people call Lee Wan-yong "Chinilpa" and "the biggest betrayer in the whole Korean history"? The treaty was not the consent from the emperor, and the source says so. Please read the source carefully.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you keep continuing the discussion, either use your page or the talk page of Korea. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is true that the seal exists regardless of his will. So, it is wrong that the required Korean Imperial seal was absent." I never talked about whether the emperor was for the treaty or against it. I was only talking about whether there exists his seal on the treaty or not. Please read what I wrote carefully. Thanks.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
All you have to do is to provide "SOURCEs"
You know Wikipedia regards WP:V more important than WP:FACT per you experiences. So please don't complain about your edit to others. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- "complain about my edit to others"? I don't get what you mean. I did not "add" but "deleted" information which has no source. I don't get why you say I have no source. Do I have to show a source which says there's no source? It is theoritically impossible! For example, can you show any evidence that there do not exist alians? It may be possible to show evidence that there exist alians, but it is not possible to show evidence that there doesn't.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your recent edit summaries show nothing but insistences that "YOU have NO Source" to others which is actually contradictory to your edits. I didn't say that either you deleted or added something to the articles. Well, the alian is not a good example for your argument because there are many reports to show unidentified figures in pictures, and some people (quite a lot of people) believe that such creature would live somewhere in the universe. Besides, they have at least have "sources" for their claims while you don't. So simple "fact" at this time. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like you misunderstand what I said. It is possible to show evidence that alians exist. But it is not possible to show evidence that alians do not exist, right? And which article are you reffering to this time? To which sentence I edited you are saying I have to provide sources?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The last article at which you and I encountered was created long time ago, and referring citations is quite different from the current system just like other articles in similar situations. The article IS referenced, but not enough footnotes are attached yet. Besides, you're deleting only "specific topics" (regarding Gojoseon) based on your belief that the state was totally in myth, so you have to provide that general academics believe (not what you believe) that something did not exist in history. So that's why I suggested you to provide "sources". Regards. -Caspian blue (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that you misunderstand what I was trying to do. Does that mean you're referring to my edit on Korea? But I did not say Gojoseon was totally myth. What I did was to add words, "In its legend". Regardless of existence of Gojoseon itself, it is legend that it was establised in 2333 BC by Dangun, isn't it? The article Gojoseon also says that it was "legendarily established in 2333" and that "Gojoseon was said to be founded in 2333 BC by the legendary Dangun". The article Dangun also says that he "was the legendary founder of Gojoseon". So, I think it is quite reasonable to add "in its legend" before "the history of Korea began with the founding of Gojoseon in 2333 BC by Dangun". Do you prefer "According to its legend"? Anyway, my edit is not contradictory to other articles (Gojoseon and Dangun) and since I did not add any articles which say Gojoseon did not exist, what source do I have to show? I do not believe Gojoseon was really established in 2333 BC, but it was established then in legend. All I did was to add "in its legend". As I said, my edit is not contradictory to the artcles, Gojoseon and Dangun. They also say that Gojoseon was "legendarily" established in 2333 BC.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, well, this discussion is quite mixed with several articles. I don't know whether you're a native speaker of English (I don't), but I clearly left that "weird phrasing" on my summary field as referring to your edit, because "In its myth", what is "it"? Country is referred to as "she", and the opening sentence is awkward. Gojoseon was believe to be established in 2333 BC according to "somebody" or "some source" would be much appropriate. Besides, I don't think I misunderstand you at all. In that case, you still need to add "citations". Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I meant Korea by "it". In English, countries sometimes referred to as "she", but sometimes "it". It does not matter. Then, what about adding "According to Korean legend" or "Accodding to Samguk Yusa"?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The latter is fine with me.(it is A source, although it is a primary one). So I think we're done here. So long for a while.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, so long.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The latter is fine with me.(it is A source, although it is a primary one). So I think we're done here. So long for a while.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I meant Korea by "it". In English, countries sometimes referred to as "she", but sometimes "it". It does not matter. Then, what about adding "According to Korean legend" or "Accodding to Samguk Yusa"?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, well, this discussion is quite mixed with several articles. I don't know whether you're a native speaker of English (I don't), but I clearly left that "weird phrasing" on my summary field as referring to your edit, because "In its myth", what is "it"? Country is referred to as "she", and the opening sentence is awkward. Gojoseon was believe to be established in 2333 BC according to "somebody" or "some source" would be much appropriate. Besides, I don't think I misunderstand you at all. In that case, you still need to add "citations". Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that you misunderstand what I was trying to do. Does that mean you're referring to my edit on Korea? But I did not say Gojoseon was totally myth. What I did was to add words, "In its legend". Regardless of existence of Gojoseon itself, it is legend that it was establised in 2333 BC by Dangun, isn't it? The article Gojoseon also says that it was "legendarily established in 2333" and that "Gojoseon was said to be founded in 2333 BC by the legendary Dangun". The article Dangun also says that he "was the legendary founder of Gojoseon". So, I think it is quite reasonable to add "in its legend" before "the history of Korea began with the founding of Gojoseon in 2333 BC by Dangun". Do you prefer "According to its legend"? Anyway, my edit is not contradictory to other articles (Gojoseon and Dangun) and since I did not add any articles which say Gojoseon did not exist, what source do I have to show? I do not believe Gojoseon was really established in 2333 BC, but it was established then in legend. All I did was to add "in its legend". As I said, my edit is not contradictory to the artcles, Gojoseon and Dangun. They also say that Gojoseon was "legendarily" established in 2333 BC.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The last article at which you and I encountered was created long time ago, and referring citations is quite different from the current system just like other articles in similar situations. The article IS referenced, but not enough footnotes are attached yet. Besides, you're deleting only "specific topics" (regarding Gojoseon) based on your belief that the state was totally in myth, so you have to provide that general academics believe (not what you believe) that something did not exist in history. So that's why I suggested you to provide "sources". Regards. -Caspian blue (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like you misunderstand what I said. It is possible to show evidence that alians exist. But it is not possible to show evidence that alians do not exist, right? And which article are you reffering to this time? To which sentence I edited you are saying I have to provide sources?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your recent edit summaries show nothing but insistences that "YOU have NO Source" to others which is actually contradictory to your edits. I didn't say that either you deleted or added something to the articles. Well, the alian is not a good example for your argument because there are many reports to show unidentified figures in pictures, and some people (quite a lot of people) believe that such creature would live somewhere in the universe. Besides, they have at least have "sources" for their claims while you don't. So simple "fact" at this time. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Inuyasha
No protection of Inuyasha is necessary any more because we started discussion. Collectonian and I misunderstood each other. We both no longer have an intention of reverting the page. Would you please unlock the protection? Thank you very much.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Kuebie for 24 hours for edit warring; for yourself, please try to be more civil and stay cool when the editing gets hot. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your warning. I'll try.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
memo
Japan 4.23.83.100 [3] Objectiveye [4]
korean swordsmanship ob [11] 423 [12]
talk ob[15] He explains why there's information about the Empress although he's not the one who added it.
ob[16]"You can't just leave out the Editing Agency and the Occupation"
423[17]"The Editing Agency by Japan is a part of Asian history, you can't just leave that out."
Your repeated misresentations to AN3
When you report such 3RR report, you have to say things based on nothing but a "truth". Your recent 3RR reports are regretfully out of line. You clearly know he did not violate a 3RR per your warning at 08:07:08 today: Next revert will violate 3rr. Be careful.[18] The report is bad faith report for you to block him whatsoever. That is called "gaming the 3RR system". You seem to be taking over Bentecbye's place whose edits are problematic as not sticking to sources. You already know that I rather opposed to Manac's edits, and I consider your behaviors are nothing but just like him. If you continue such malrepresentation, you would be rather getting in a problems. Why don't you use "talk pages" first and behave civil? --Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I used the talk page many times but he never responded to me until today.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
= 3rr rule
You violated 3rr rule in Kumdo, 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.--Manacpowers (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)