User talk:Generalondal

Your edit to Koreans
Given that you just reverted to a version of the article where the "Koreans outside of Korea" section is utterly broken, would you mind fixing it? Thank you. cab 02:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. cab 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder
This is a sockpuppet of SummerThunder, or an imitator: Special:Contributions/83.151.156.148 He reposted some of Summer's earlier contributions. Note the signatures. You can use his contributions, but just be sure to not leave any messes. –Gunslinger47 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough of your slanders. The sockpuppet 83.151.156.148 I used is publically available at www.publicproxyservers.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Generalondal (talk • contribs).


 * Let me clarify... User:SummerThunder or an imitator was using that IP address a mere two hours after the same IP address edited the Koreans page. Do you not understand why I why I moved to revert them?  See here for more information on the problem. Long term abuse/SummerThunder –Gunslinger47 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does coincidence have any meaning to you?

Mention of Japan relatedness in Origins Section
Thought it might be best to discuss this instead of just reverting each other's edit. I thought we could do this through the edit reasons section but saw that your last revert of my edit didn't give a response. Relatedness to Japan is already explained in the body of the origins section, it's also mentioned in the info box on the right side of the article. There's no reasons to further mention it in the FIRST sentence of the section on ORIGINS. While Korean relatedness to Japan is true, it's a topically peripheral matter that should be left out of the intro sentence to the section on origins.Melonbarmonster 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've appropriately changed the headliner to cover for the mention of relatedness. If you check the headliner, it's 'Origins and related ethnic groups'. It's also POV to remove just the mention of Japanese, while not deleting mention of other ethnic groups, like 'Mongolians' and 'Central Asians'.


 * You have got to be kidding me. Why are you so adamant about including this in this part of the article when it's already mentioned in other appropriate sections of the article????  Mongolians and Central Asians are mentioned in the section as counter-examples to highlight uniqueness of Korean Y-chromosome polymorphism.  THey're not in the section along with Japanese to show a list of related ethnic groups.  The article already carefully explains that japanese populations also share haplogroup 02b1 with the Koreans.  The info box shows relatedness to Japanese.  Why do you need to include this AGAIN in the Origins section???  And just changing the title doesnt' make this a section of related ethnic groups.  If you want to write a section on ethnicities related to Koreans, you're welcome to it.  But the section was written to deal with origins of Korean people and NOT relatedness and it makes no sense to change it just to leave in an out of place, redundant issue.Melonbarmonster 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude you can't change the title of the section yourself and then say that we should leave the japan relatedness in because of the title...Melonbarmonster 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mongolians and Central Asians are mentioned in the section under the 'Altaic linguistic lineage' context, and this sentence was the original content of 'Origins' section when the section was created. Korean Y-chromosome polymorphism is complementary evidence, without citations, added afterwards. You are showing POV by omitting the other two related ethnic groups, while consistently deleting Japanese. Please refute the sources provided if you wish to take Japanese out, and stop vandalizing the article. Thank you.


 * Please refrain from using the vandal label. I'm the one who started this discussion instead of blindly reverting your edits and I have been discussing this with you in good faith. Let's try to keep things civil.


 * I think you're misunderstanding me. No one's refuting Japan relatedness. The only thing I'm being POV on is getting rid of redundancy and improving readability.  All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to state the same thing over and over again when it's already dealt with quite nicely in the body of the text. I'd also rather not overstate Japan relatedness in this section because pro-Chinese editors have already been trying to make POV edits and I just don't think this is the section to get into that stuff.  It makes more sense to stick with origins in tungustic-altaic context.  Relatedness is a complicated issue that we can't deal with fairly in this short section.


 * If what you're really interested in is for the article to state that Japanese and Koreans are related, that's already accomplished pretty clearly. For reasons stated, I'd like to ask that we leave it out of the first sentence of this section.

Melonbarmonster 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts of edits on Korean People article
Please don't make unilateral edits without discussion. You didn't respond to the discussion on the talk page and have been reverting other people's good faith edits while disregarding editors who disagree with you. Your reverts are in violation of WP:EW. Resolve differences on the talk page.Melonbarmonster 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)