User talk:Novidmarana/Archive 1

regarding your reverts on Racism in the People's Republic of China
I do not like revert wars. It doesn't help anybody. I hope that we could come to a mutual compromise / understanding.

For this page, the key is racism, where we discuss a broad spectrum of race related issues. Affirmative actions are key components of improving the economical, political and educational aspects of ethnic minorities. In turn, such policies would generate reverse racism feelings.

For example, Racism in the United States talked about the U.S. government segregation and affirmative actions. It also mentioned the criticism of such policy in university admissions. Coconut99 99 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are brave!
I fear, you may have a lot of abuse coming from somebody for what you did to SV Dynamo! It was a necerssary step, however. It had to be cut back to whats reliable information. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look and added my opinion. Let's see. EA210269 (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Moderate your tone
I hope you can moderate your tone in your comments. Imad marie (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my harsh words. But again, you should have addressed it with the other editor, or reversed his action instead of going ahead and changing the names of other articles. I undid the move of the Cave of the Patriarchs attack‎ article, so feel free to discuss the move with User:Jayjg directly or on the talk page of the article. NPOV does not mean that a POV edit (or an edit perceived as such) by one editor should be countered with another POV edit. Instead, address the POV edit of the first editor directly. Novidmarana (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem :)
 * The reason I posted my comment on the project talk page and not the article's is that I think that the scope of this matter is beyond the article talk page or the editor talk page. And I left Jayjg a comment on his talk page notifying him about my comment in the project talk page. Imad marie (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Xinjiang incident
I know what I'm doing. If you think track record is nothing, then why do we have so many templates that will link to our contributions, deleted contributions, RfC, RfCU, etc.? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, of course. The track record is there to use to discredit the arguments of other editors when one disagrees with their pov. That's what all these templates are for, right? Novidmarana (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Korean sentiment
Quote: "Anti-Korean sentiment involves hatred or dislike for Korean people, culture or either of the two states (North Korea/South Korea) on the Korean peninsula."

"Either state" includes both North and South Korea. Sentiment against the DPRK is also anti-Korean sentiment.

Additionally, regarding the film, it is not anti-Kim Jong-il; it is entirely anti-Korean. It refers to the entire state.

Finally, when I mentioned "biased censorship", I referred to the large number of edits, not any specific ones. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit
Your edit is too big. You've gone too far to remove the whole list without discussion. It is not acceptable. Please discuss it first. You removed sourced information. If you think it is not sourced, please explain why you think so.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since then is there are rule against big edits? Oh well, anyway there is huge discussion on the talk page, and you even did participate in this discussion, although you did not say anything of substance. Novidmarana (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * >>Since then is there are rule against big edits?
 * You mean you don't mind me reverting your edit?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

sic
Do you know what sic is? Your editing for nothing. Please read Sic. Do not ever add sic again. It's meaningless.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me the reason why you added [sic].--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "redifinition" and "ethinic" were misspelling. Just misspelling.  Adding [sic] to translation isn't possible.  What you did seems to me harassment anyway, making laugh of others' mistake.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that you cannot change the quote. But it was translation from Japanese into English.  You should have known that it was only a mistake by the wikipedian who quoted it.  Who would add [sic] to translation?  You could have asked the one who added the quote (me) when you find the misspelling.
 * By the way, you're very good at making people sick. I really respect you.  Where did you learn it?  I don't think I can be as good as you no matter how hard I try.  Good bye.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Other points
Beside [sic], I think we should remove the part where brought about the edit war. we should remove this sentence, "As Japan, China and Taiwan make up more stories about alleged South Korean cultural claims, South Korea is aware of the issue," and "See also." What do you think?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be joking, of course this sentence has to stay there. Novidmarana (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. There is no one who said Japan made up alleged claims. And "alleged" is you estimate of the claims.  It is an original research.  The sentence should be like this.
 * "As these claims are reported in the mass media of China, Japan and Taiwan, South Korea is aware of the issue."
 * Your sentence is an original research.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * English is a beautiful language. Please use it properly. If you would care to read the paragraph you would see that these are alleged claims and not facts. And that they are made up, well the stories of the non-existing professors confirm that these are just fabrications. Novidmarana (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * >> If you would care to read the paragraph
 * ..... It was me who added the paragraph.... What are you thinking...??  The article say that China and Taiwan made up some claims, but it does not say Japan did too.  If you would care to read the paragraph, you would see that Japan made up no claims.
 * The theory that samurai is derived from Korea is not something made up by Japanese or Chinese. See samurang and ssaurabi.  There sure is a false theory that samurai is derived from Korea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

message
Hello, Novidmarana. I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. You said "Just a question, are you able to learn?" Please talk gently to other editors. I'm also putting a message on Michael Friedrich's talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

sic2
It is still you who misunderstand how to use [sic]. The only one who can add [sic] is the quoter, not the reader. You have no rights to add [sic] to the quotation which otheres' quoted because you don't know whether it is the source or the quoter that made the mistake. When you add [sic], it means the source is wrong. But it may be the quoter who misspelled. Adding [sic] without checking the source puts the author under a false accusation. So, you cannot add [sic] to quotations whose source you don't have. Removing your [sic] makes perfect sense. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

reply
>>So basically what you tell us is that suddenly you realized that the source is not in English but in Japanese.

Well, it sounds like you don't have the ability to understand others' comment. I said I suddenly realized "there were misspellings." When did I say I suddenly realized "the source is in Japanese"?! Of cource I know the source is in Japanese from the very beginning because it is me who quoted the source.

And that you just reverted, but did not even bother to look at what you reverted, because even a blind man would have seen this spelling mistakes. And that you kept reverting even after it had been explained to you why there should be a [sic].

>>When did you explain to me why there should be a [sic]?! When?! When?! Besides, as I said above, you have no rights to add [sic] to the quotation because you don't know whether it is the author of the source or the quoter who made the mistake. You overused [sic]. It cannot be accepted. Please do not add [sic] if you don't know whether the author or the quoter who made the mistake.

>>And all that because you thought that my edits were meaningless. Just a question, are you able to learn?

That's my line.

>>Because apparently you did not learn from the first incident a few hours ago. You cannot just revert any edits by other editor. There is a talk page and you should use this talk page to discuss controversial changes. But all your contributions on the talk page indicate only that you feel that you are only who is entitled to make changes to the article.

Don't talk as if you never reverted others' edit. You reverted others' edit within 24 hours. And don't talk as if you had used talk page properly to solve the dispute. All you did was to mock others.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

dubious
Why did you add "dubious"? It does not make sence because it is sourced and I added the original Japanese sentence too. Please do not add "dubious" just because you don't want to believe it. Tell me what is "dubious".--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you can add "dubious" even though there is a source and the original Japanese sentence. But I cannot remove the "dubious".  How self-righteous of you.  You talk as if you were the one who is always right and anyone who is against you were wrong.  I don't get it at all.  When did I insist on that the source is in English?  Don't talk your dream.  Why do you say my translation is inaccurate?!  I really don't get it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaya
>I gave my reasons, you gave no reasons, so I can assume that you are just playing your usual revert games.

Don't talk as if you were not playing your usual revert game. It is you who reverted first. I gave my reason. It is still disputed. That's why. Nihonshoki states that there was "Japanese Prefecture Mimana (Gaya)" in Korea. The existence of the Prefecture is still disputed. For example, Takashi Yoshida, a Japanese professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, supports the theory of its existence. So, it is still disputed. The name of the author makes the article more neutral and reliable. Removing it is not an improvement of the article.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop stalking me!
Stop stalking me. You are harassing. Read WP:STALK please. It can be a reason for being blocked from Wikipedia, so please be careful.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You should be very careful with your accusations. I edited Gaya confederacy, and you reverted although you never edited the article before. I edited Tribute, and you reverted although you never edited the article before. I edited Tribute, and you reverted although you never edited the article before. Looks like you are the stalker. And by the way, if you are not able to stay cool and civil, then please take a wikibreak. Although, I have to say that all your hysterical postings on my talk page are quite amusing. Novidmarana (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * >>if you are not able to stay cool and civil, then please take a wikibreak.
 * That's my line. What you did on talk:Adolf Hitler is clearly very uncivil.  It proves that you have no intention to talk seriously.
 * I was not stalking you. I found that there were a war edit between Propstop and Kuebie on both pages.  That's why.  I only tried to improve the article. Do you find any problems in this edit?  But even if you did not stalk me, your message on Adolf Hitler cannot be accepted.  You left the message only to fool me, adding [sic] again without reason.  Your edit on Talk:Adolf Hitler and my edits on Gaya confederacy and Tribute are very different.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, you should just calm down. In your own interest, because all that agitation is not very healthy. I couldn't care less, as I said above your hysterical postings on my talk page are quite amusing. Sincerely yours, Novidmarana (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock
Given that you edit the same articles as bloked User:Kao no Nai Tsuki, at similar times, and given that your only contributions are revert, in particular whenever blocked User:Kao no Nai Tsuki is close to violating 3RR, and given that you are new editor, but are knowledgeable about 3RR and noticeboards etc. we have to suspect that you are sockpuppet of the aforementioned user.--Propastop (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not Propastop
I am not Propastop. I tried to have a discussion on the talk page. I am no sock.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also Concerned this.

Bentecbye = Pabopa = Propastop = Michael Friedrich JS-40LAC (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I were Bentecbye, I would have been blocked when s/he was blocked.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem.
I was asked to request for checkusers on SPAs by an admin due to the ongoing canvassing at the AFD and multiple articles, but well, I don't think that the two are the same one. Though Propastop is obviously not a new user.--Caspian blue (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information
I visited the ANI. Could you change the thread title as reflecting the Japanese 2channel's disruption as well? Because Michael Friedrich's canvassing causes disruptions to many articles. Besides, you're also being watched by 2channel people. http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1218372119/ You can find your name there. You're also accused of being a sockpuppet by, funnily the obvious SPA. Requests for checkuser/Case/Manacpowers. Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a break
It appears that you are someone who is just inching for a fight; you just have to argue with others even if there are alternatives; you just have to force your point across, it is almost as if you feel pleasure in doing so, all from the comfort of your own computer.
 * Consider WP:STALK.
 * So I've done XY and Z. Have you made your point yet? Why do you always have to follow up on a single point many times, when one would suffice? Yes, I know I'm a bad person in your mind, but going on and on only makes me a lot worse.
 * Although I do not want any misuse of my images, for you to use them for your own biases and 'ganda, the main reason why they are on Wikipedia is that I have the will for it to be shown to INFORM, and not DECIEVE. Your actions of removal have no purpose or reason.

Kindest Regards, and hope for reconciliation in the future, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Original uploader of this picture has repeatedly changes the description of a picture he shot during this rally - see IMAGE. We cannot be sure whether this picture indeed shows what the description claims." What does the image look like to you? Chinese holding Chinese flags? Or are they Indians with Chinese flags? Oh, I can't seem to tell, its so hard to see; they must be wearing some form of disguise or camouflage! Oh, they aren't signs they're holding, they're AK-47s!!! What does the image look like? Do you need a citation for something you can visualize yourself? Do not take the law into your own hands. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, you are here to inform? On Anti-cnn you sounded a little bit different, and that makes it hard for me to assume good faith. I guess your edit summary said it all. First one protestor, then five, then only some, I guess the truth is very flexible when it comes to inform here. And guess what, pictures can show many things, there are many examples in history, for example the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies - so we have to be careful with image description, especially if you suddenly change the description from lone to five to some. Anyway, calm down and we can talk. Novidmarana (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, really. Regarding the image, take a careful look at it. Does it really need citations? Why has it been accepted for six months? The image was uploaded the night after the Canberra relay, with no protest from other Wikipedia users. It was as is for so long, until your recent edit(s). I may be wrong, but I see this as a revenge attack due to Anti-Korean sentiment and what used to be South Korean cultural claims, an effort to disrupt my edits. Initially, on the night after the relay, I added all three images to the page; the lakeside crowd image was removed because it was "poor and unclear", and I can accept that. The other two - can one really state ambiguities regarding them? Can two plus two really equal five? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs citations as the picture could show everything. Normally one would trust the photographer, but given your political agenda and your past attempts to manipulate articles here at Wikipedia one should not give the benefit of the doubt. As I said above, there are many examples of pictures that ostensibly show something, and only later it turns to be something completely different. See the link I gave above, or see the photographs controversies sourrounding the 2008 war in Ossetia. Novidmarana (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:A State Of Trance
Hi - This user is someone who uses multiple accounts. I'm putting together a sock puppet report. These are the user accounts that I am sure he's using. If you're interested in providing some detail you can have a look at the report Suspected_sock_puppets/A_State_Of_Trance.



He's been blocked recently for disruptive editing, but not for sock puppetry. E_dog95'  Hi ' 03:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)