User talk:Epulum

March 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dosirak. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kevin12xd 03:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you choose to redirect that page to Packed lunch? Wouldn't the original redirect to Doshirak have been more appropriate? Kevin12xd 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The word dosirak (도시락) means "packed lunch" (or more precisely, "packed meal", because "breakfast dosirak" and "dinner dosirak" also exist.) in Korean. You can see that the page named "도시락" in Korean Wikipedia is linked to the page named "packed lunch" in English Wikipedia. Doshirak, the page on the instant noodles, is linked to the page named "도시락 (라면)" in Korean Wikipedia. It can be transliterated into "dosirak (ramyeon)", according to the Revised Romanization. (Perhaps you already know that many brand names do not follow the official romanization system.) I hope this explanation helps. --Epulum (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Sorry about that! Cheers, Kevin12xd 20:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cocido merge
I don't want to raise this as a behavioural issue and/or invoke DR, but there are things better raised here in answering this post.

Frankly, your change of tack from wanting to split the article to now wanting to merge looks on the face if it rather pointy.

And the failure to mention these other articles makes it more so.

So just to stress the point, this is not a warning of any kind, just an explanation of why I'm asking questions, and an invitation to see it as others might. I hope it is helpful. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just read WP:POINT and WP:DR that you have linked (thanks for linking them) and I'd appreciate if you could explain why I could have been thinking you were raising those issues. I don't think I "failed" to mention cocido madrileño, cocido lebaniego, cocido montañés, or cozido à portuguesa, all of which are types of cocido/cozido. I still don't get why you think I must have mentioned them in my merger proposal of the bigger scope articles. (Thanks for mentioning them yourself though. I think mentioning them is helpful. What I wonder is the reason not mentioning them can be a problem, and if the fact that I edited the "See also" sections of the three articles is important.) I also wonder why wanting the merger of cocido and cozido and wanting the cozido à portuguesa to be a separate article is seen as "change of tack". What I wanted is quite consistent:
 * The article cozido (wider concept) in English Wikipedia seemed to be explaining cozido à portuguesa (narrower concept), and it was also connected to cozido à portuguesa articles in other language Wikipedias.
 * If the article should keep its scope, it should be moved to cozido à portuguesa.
 * If the article should keep its name, it should be disconnected from cozido à portuguesa articles in other language Wikipedias and its content (scope) should change. (And this is what happened, I'm satisfied.)
 * The scope of cozido and cocido overlaps.
 * It may be a good idea to explain them together. Doing so, we can also explain cocido madrileño, cocido lebaniego, cocido montañés, and cozido à portuguesa and other cocido/cozido varieties together, as in Portuguese, Spanish, and Japanese Wikipedias.
 * I'm sorry if I'm asking too many questions. --Epulum (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It still seems a puzzling about-face to me, and this is a pattern of editing that has usually (but not always) turned out to be disruptive in the past, sometimes unintentionally so. Perhaps if you explained at Talk:Cozido exactly what the eventual article structure would be, that would make it all clear. Andrewa (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have explained in Talk:Cozido why the article cozido should be moved to cozido à portuguesa should it keep is scope; or it should be disconnected from cozido à portuguesa articles in other language Wikipedias and its scope should change should it keep its name. In Talk:Cozido I have explained how the scope of cozido and cocido overlaps. Will the subtopics cocido madrileño, cocido lebaniego, cocido montañés, and cozido à portuguesa seriously affected if the merger of cozido and cocido happens? I doubt that. If you think they will, please tell me how so. And again, I'm not getting any answer for my questions. I'd really appreciate if you could answer at least some of them. --Epulum (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try... first question I think was why you think I must have mentioned them in my merger proposal of the bigger scope articles. I don't think exactly that. I do think it would have been far better, for several reasons. The one that concerns us here is, it looks pointy that you didn't, and whether that's true or not it's better avoided.
 * I also wonder why wanting the merger of cocido and cozido and wanting the cozido à portuguesa to be a separate article is seen as "change of tack". I think that's another example of what you mean by questions. Well, you've gone from wanting a split to wanting a merge, have you not? Why?
 * Do these answers help? Andrewa (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The first one helps, thanks! Unfortunately the second one doesn't. What I suggested was that A (stew) and B (a variety of stew), two different things that have relation of inclusion, should be separate articles, while A (stew, in Portuguese) and C (stew, in Spanish), which are the same thing (at least in my view), should be merged. How can it be a "change of tack"? Another question I kept asking was if the fact that I edited the "See also" sections of the three aforementioned articles was important. --Epulum (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are over-reacting to the suggestion that there is a change of tack in going from wanting to split the variety out of the general article, to wanting to merge it with another general article (from which several varieties are already split). If you think that's not a change of tack, let's just agree to disagree. It's no big deal.


 * Similarly, I'm not really interested in whether your being aware of the other articles is important or not. It is relevant IMO. Not in yours? Andrewa (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said, I agree that mentioning the existence of the four subtopic articles is helpful, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary. It may or may not be relevant. Also, you could have answered when I first asked, or, before I over-reacted. Answering that you thought it was relevant doesn't seem very difficult. --Epulum (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your criticism is noted. At the risk of offending you further, I must say that this quibbling rejection of criticism is also consistent with pointy editing. There is a growing appearance that your real agenda is to reverse the merge decision. It is not proof and certainly not actionable IMO, but it is something I think you should avoid.


 * And you can remove this appearance very easily, by contributing your views to the discussion on the overall article configuration. It is quite legitimate to seek to reverse the decision by calling attention to its wider consequences.


 * To this end, it would have been better for you to start that discussion, as I suggested, but I will now do so. See Talk:Cozido Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are accusing me of many things (even excluding my "over-reacting"), perhaps based on good reasons, but you aren't giving me the reasons. You think my real agenda is to reverse the merge decision. Why? When you criticize somthing, or someone, you need to give your reasoning. And I kept asking for it. You think my responses are quibbling rejection of criticism. Why? And here is my objection: That is not my agenda, because my agenda has been not having an article named "cozido" that describes "cozido à portuguesa" and that is linked to cozido à portuguesa articles of other Wikipedias, which I have said multiple times. Now the article named "cozido" describes actual cozido dishes, thanks to the replacement of most of its content with the draft content. And as I said, I'm quite satisfied with the result. Please let me know some of your becauses. --Epulum (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think this has gone as far as it should. I'm not accusing you of any behavioral problem. But I am suggesting you look at how this comes over to others. If you wish to do this, that's good. If you don't, I have tried, and perhaps I am the only one who feels this way, in which case it was a mistake to raise it here. In any case I see no point in taking this any further at this time. Sorry to bother you, and I hope to see your thoughts at Talk:Cozido. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * However, there may be a more specific and serious issue with regard to reversing the merge, see below. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reinstatement of merged article
As stated at Talk:Cozido, I am concerned at your reinstatement of Cozido à portuguesa, in defiance of the move close at Talk:Cozido.

I note your reply on the article talk page. As I said there, disagree.

It may well be that the decision to merge is reversed, but this should be discussed, not done unilaterally. Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Cozido à portuguesa didn't even exist before someone moved Cozido to it by mistake. You can't decide to leave something as a redirect when it is not a redirect. Merged articles are Cozido and Draft:Cozido. You can always start a new WP:CFORK discussion if you think Cozido à portuguesa should be merged into Cozido. I've also replied to your comment at Talk:Cozido. --Epulum (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are now clearly failing to get the point. The decision was to merge.


 * Please, this is escalating, and nobody benefits from that. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that "this is escalating, and nobody benefits from that". But am I failing to get the point? I can't look into your brain, and I really need an explanation why you think so. When I asked for your your reasoning on other things, you wanted to stop talking. So I stopped talking about it and provided what you wanted me to provide in the Talk:Cozido page. Now I'm asking for your reasoning on this one. I'm not upset or anything. I just don't understand what is disturbing you, and I'd like to know it. I also hope that you are not upset.


 * On "the decision was to merge", yes, the dicision was to merge Draft:Cozido into Cozido as the latter was an article with longer history, as you said. Wasn't it? The article Cozido à portuguesa is a newly created stub with a shorter history. What is disturbing you? --Epulum (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we need to get another opinion on this. I have tried to discuss here, and we are getting nowhere, so the next step is ANI. This is not to seek to punish you, but rather to get input from an uninvolved admin. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Epulum. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Tarako (food)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Tarako (food)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Gidiyorum (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Yeopcha" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yeopcha. Since you had some involvement with the Yeopcha redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)