User talk:Wikibreaking

Welcome!


Hello, Wikibreaking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Gimbap
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bulgogi
Don't copy a large article edit to the talk page just in case it gets deleted. If it gets deleted and you need to refer to it, the material is still present in the article's edit history. Just link to the diff of your edit (see WP:SDG for instructions if you do not know how to do this) and put this link on the talk page. Imagine the mess if everyone copied all of their edits to the talk page just in case someone deleted it from the article. Meters (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Bulgogi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Subjectivity vs. objectivity
Hello. Many of your recent edits have added a lot of subjective opinions stated as objective facts. Several editors have tried to explain this to you, but there is still a lot of confusion. Do you understand that not everything supported by a source can be added as truth? Some statements are not verifiable, and are open to debate. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to present opinions, even if they are true, as facts. Do you understand? As an example, there are many different kinds of Chinese cuisine, and making statements about when "Chinese cuisine" became real is just one opinion on a complicated historical issue. According to historians, the documented history of Chinese cuisine starts with the neolithic period 4,000 years ago. Saying that Chinese cuisine didn't exist then, or was inferior, are personal opinions which don't belong in Wikipedia.

Just as important, the Charles D Benn book you added doesn't support the claim that bulgogi or anything similar was popular in ancient China! This is what we are talking about when we say original research. Sources must be specific, and they must support the added content.

It looks to me like you're just adding sources so other editors don't remove your content again, not because they are good sources that support your claims. That's not the point of having sources. You cannot add what you know, and then add sources to it which don't say exactly that. You cannot say that because two words have the same definition they must be related, unless a reliable source says exactly that. There are a lot of cultures with names for foods that could be translated as "fire meat", and not all of them come from Korea, right? That's why you need a source making the connection. Making the connection yourself is considered a form of research by Wikipedia.

Please acknowledge that we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia, not push an agenda. If you can't assume good faith, then you will eventually be blocked again. I know it must be frustrating that we aren't answering every one of your comments on talk pages, but you don't seem to be acknowledging what we are saying, so reading your long, sometimes insulting comments makes it very hard to cooperate with you, especially when you ignore what we're saying and restore your own content anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean not verifiable? You don't get to decide what's subjective & what's objective. As long as a fact can be referenced to an official qualified reference, as long as it's not against Wikipedia rule, it should be uploaded. It is perfectly verifiable to that reference which is authentically accepted. What's objective is not what you find as subjective or objective. It's objective if I am referencing it to an accepted qualified reference.


 * Do you understand what objective and subjective mean? You are describing things as "facts" which are not facts, they are opinions, or statements. Just because you are sure something is true doesn't mean it's objective. Even if you are right about it, that still doesn't mean it's objective. Wikipedia already has comprehensive rules and guidelines for deciding what sources are usable and what aren't, and you keep ignoring them. This is what other editors are trying to discuss with you, and you need to listen to what they are saying. Being "official" is mostly irrelevant.
 * Worse, you are not referencing content to reliable sources. You added the Benn book to a sentence which was not supported by that book. No source you've added supports a link between yaki and bul, or kogi and niku. Niku (焼き) doesn't mean "fire", it means "grilled". You can't say there's a connection without a source, because then someone else can come along and change it to say it's just a coincidence, or that the Japanese one came first, or that both places got it from somewhere else.
 * Understand? Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not up to you to decide whether something is a fact or an opinion. What's important is whether the content is official & whether the content is referenced. Let the readers decide if that's fact or opinion. Also, obviously, experts don't always just read out events historically recorded. They gather references & use logic to deduce a conclusion. Whether it is logical or not depends on their proofs & the rules of inference. Simply put, does Wiki rule allow publishing referenced official relevant contents or does Wiki rule prohibits such just because it's against your agenda or whatever?

Wikibreaking (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about on Bulgogi? You are looking at the wrong page on Benn book. See page 120; it clearly says how many ingredients were added during Tang dynasty (or so I am told). Also, when you look up many Chinese dishes, the timelines are not all 5000 years ago.
 * What connection? I already referenced a book on Yakiniku being a copy of Bulkogi. As for the translation, Niku means meat while Yaki means burned, grilled or agitated. I suppose I will remove that. Korean already had the word Bulkogi as there are 1935 newspaper (which I can show if asked) using that word, but forget the verbal connection for now. But, see? This is a debate. Besides, while looking for this, I found another reference on Yakiniku anyway which I will update.

Wikibreaking (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You keep using the word "official". What do you mean by that? As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't give more weight to official sources.
 * You added a source to bulgogi which doesn't support the attached claim. You are making many claims without any sources at all. When you are asked to include sources, you add sources which other editors do not accept as being reliable, or which don't verify the entire claim. Wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS to decide this, so you are wrong, editors DO get to decide what is fact and what is opinion -but you are also an editor. That's what consensus means. You have already been blocked once, so you know that working with other editors is in you best interest.
 * If experts are making those claims, then cite the experts. Wikipedia uses sources, not experts. If you are an expert, then you still need to use a source which is verifiable, otherwise how would we know? Wikipedia uses neutral language and a specific WP:TONE, which means that claims which are contested by sources are presented in a certain way. We don't use our logic and reasoning to choose a side. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Or so I am told"... What? What does that mean? Who is telling you? Are you not actually reading these sources? Please confirm that you, the editor typing this, has read the source you are citing.
 * The source does indicate that Chinese cuisine changed, but the book says nothing about bulgogi and very little about Korean food. I see nothing on page 120 which supports the preceding sentence. Page 129 says that "Roasting, broiling, and barbecuing were common forms of cooking in medieval China..." and it goes in to a bit of detail about one method of cooking beef, but that's about it. If it's in that book, it's not on those pages, or easily found by searching. You didn't bother to read the source, did you? That's why it had "diversity" "diet" and "immortality" highlighted, because you copied the link from some other article. Oy vey. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the references by experts (or such) or the qualified references referring to such references.
 * Whatever source I added, they are by experts or refer to such. Hence, they are reliable whether you want to rely on them or not. They were published by acceptable public well-established outlets & they refer to solid references. Be precisely specific which sentence you are talking about. Also, why are we talking here instead of Bulgogi's talk page if you want to talk on Bulgogi instead of something in general? These should be made into records so that everyone can see. If you want to talk further on Bulgogi, just make a note here that you are opening a talk page at Bulgogi. I will attend.
 * I found that book from here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_cuisine "The fascination with exotics from the diverse range of the Tang empire and the search for plants and animals which promoted health and longevity were two of the factors encouraging diversity in Tang dynasty diet.[26] During the Tang, the many common foodstuffs and cooking ingredients in addition to those already listed were barley, garlic, salt, turnips, soybeans, pears, apricots, peaches, apples, pomegranates, jujubes, rhubarb, hazelnuts, pine nuts, chestnuts, walnuts, yams, taro, etc.[27]" If that's important for you, I will find more references on when exactly Chinese food started to develop like today. I didn't think it was that important as much as how China had imported Bulgogi.
 * Yeah, I will find more references on this if you want. Don't worry. Found this for now. http://www.flavorandfortune.com/dataaccess/article.php?ID=48 I am trying to find the English versions. I just mentioned China's food evolution history as a side topic (cause they stopped eating Bulgogi as they made more food types). It wasn't meant to be important. But you are asking references anyway, which I am trying to deliver. Also found this which gives some examples which Chinese food was developed when such as stir-frying from 1500 years ago. "Stir-frying was the chief cooking method during the Southern and Northern Dynasties (A.D. 420 - 589)". http://www.china.org.cn/english/imperial/25995.htm I am just going to add these. If you want more, just say so, then I will google some more. This was a common sense to me (how China didn't always have all those dishes), so I didn't really think big of this.

Wikibreaking (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC) No. You are totally missing the point. I do NOT want you to add sources about how much Chinese cuisine has changed. Understand? I want you to stop adding sources that don't support claims made in the article. Every reference you add must support the preceding sentence. The Benn source said nothing about Korean bulgogi, so adding it after a sentence about that is deceptive. Understand? Benn did not say that bulgogi was popular in Tang China. You cannot add his book to a statement saying that bulgogi was popular in ancient China. Do you understand why this is important? Please answer this. The other sources you mention just now don't even mention Korea or bulgogi at all, so they are useless. Bulgogi is only one example of how your behavior is a problem. I am not just talking about the bulgogi article, I am talking about your behavior in many articles. You need to start using sources properly. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The history of Chinese cuisine was a side topic that was legitimately related in relation to the adoption of Bulgogi (marinated meat type). A related topic should be mentioned. Also, be specific which specific sentence is not supported by a reference. Literally show me inside quotation marks. I will copy & paste the Korean sentence for that. Geez. When did I say the Benn book said anything about Bulkogi? That was about Chinese food evolution. I am having trouble understanding your English (which is funny because you or someone else was obsessed about my grammar although I've never had trouble with English in my life whether I am a good writer or not). What's deceptive? China adopting Korean Bulkogi was a fact. Also, the mention of Chinese food evolution is a legitimately related topic to be mentioned briefly. Since you asked for references, I am adding references. Don't tell me what to do simply based on your agenda & what you want which I couldn't care less about. (Why would you impose yourself onto me as if important?) Focus on whether something is a related topic or not & whether it is backed up or not.
 * "You cannot add his book to a statement saying that bulgogi was popular in ancient China." http://news.donga.com/List/Series_70070000000914/3/70070000000914/20111027/41425734/1 "4세기 진나라 때 간보라는 사람이 쓴 ‘수신기(搜神記)’에 중원의 귀족과 부자들이 오랑캐 음식인 강자맥적(羌煮貊炙)을 즐긴다고 걱정하는 대목이 있다. 티베트의 강족이 먹는 삶은 양고기와 고구려 구성원인 맥족의 숯불구이가 중국에서 지나치게 유행한다고 걱정하는 모습이다." Run a translator on that. I provided separate references for China importing marinated meat from Korea & for Chinese food evolving throughout time instead of being always the same.

Wikibreaking (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This should be on Bulgogi's talk page
1. When made in households, Bulkogi is often (but not necessarily) made stewed in juice, wrinkly, extremely thin.

1. I am showing you that photo.

2. Originally, Bulkogi was cut slightly thicker, at around 5mm and is neither wrinkly nor stewed in juice. Also, as recorded in Donggooksesigi, it was originally grilled on a Korean barbecue grill (Hwaro) still used in restaurants in concept, so the juice doesn't pool. The original Bulkogi was also made skewered on fire. This older style bulkogi is still made, mostly in restaurants but also in some households.

2: I am showing you the recipes & photos.

3. There are many similar styles of marinated meat dishes in Korea, such as Yangnyumkalbi, which is similar to the original style bulkogi. Aside from Yangnyumkalbi, even for the marinated meat types that are called Bulkogi, there are 3 main different styles: Seoul style, Kwangyang style, Unyang style.

3. I am showing you the different styles introduced by the references. (I have no idea which topic is not referenced, so I am just numbering different parts.)

4. In Chosunyorijebub (1939), Bulkogi was described as "thinly sliced meat [that] is marinated with soy sauce, crushed green onion, sesame, black pepper, sugar, then grilled." In medieval sushingi it says that "soy sauce and garlic are used". This is generally the same as modern Bulkogi. There is a claim that Yakiniku added sugar in the recipe, but Korean already sometimes added sugar into Bulkogi as visible from 1939.

4. The historical recipes were introduced. Also, from the previous reference, a claim trying to differentiate Yakiniku & Bulkogi was introduced. I was referring to that.

5. The term Bulkogi (Bul means fire; Kogi means meat) was originally a Pyungyang dialect. Eventually, this Pyungyang dialect spread to all over Korea.

5. Showing you a linguist & an old newspaper.

6. Korean marinated meat has been adopted in China and Japan. During the modern era, Korean Bulkogi has become a popular meat dish in Japan called yakiniku. Even in ancient China before China had developed cooking like today, Korean Maekjok (ancient Bulkogi) was imported & was very popular in China as much as Yehoi.

6. China's food not being as developed back then is not really an important issue here. It was just mentioned as a side topic why they ate Korean food then stopped eating it. Anyway, I can add more references if you want more. Also, China imported Korean Bulkogi anyway (why did you delete this part as well while talking about "prove China's food was not always fully developed!"

7. Japan's most famous Yakiniku region is Tsuruhashi (Korean Town in Osaka). In this region, there is a restaurant Tsuruichi that first started Yakiniku in Japan. According to Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan by Michael Weiner, "Yakiniku is a Japanese word simply meaning 'cooked meat' and used to denote a grilled meat cuisine found in Korean restaurants in Japan. The mainland Korean equivalent is bulgogi but the two cuisines are not entirely the same. Yakuniku is a variant of cooked meat that has been modified by Zainichi Koreans to appeal to Japanese tastes."

7. That's just a typical research & interview.

If you are more specific which specific sentence you refer to as unreferenced, I don't mind finding a different reference saying the exact same thing. Wikibreaking (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Evolution of folded eyelids for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evolution of folded eyelids is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Seagull123  Φ  21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was already being done. Basically, someone was claiming that a topic has to be verifiable. So, I verified with links. Then, there was a claim that a topic has to be notable (widely known & esteemed). This doesn't seem logical (whether the content exists or not is important, not whether many people know about it or not) & I asked to show me that rule anyway. Most people don't know about many facts & topics.

Wikibreaking (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've read your comment here, but I won't reply here, but instead at Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids just to keep discussion centralised. This isn't because I don't want to reply though.  Seagull123  Φ  21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Taekkyeon
Thank you for adding to the Taekkyeon page. It is hard to read in English. Good research. Is it possible to edit it down a little? Carverrock (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Yetbub, there are claims against its existence, so the best way is to just write in the form "this is the official stance, here are the related references & proofs centuries ago". If writing in a smoother way, it doesn't look as legitimate because of such claims. The *official stance* part (as in what Taekyun has been saying officially) & the *historical proofs* part have to be emphasized in the minimalistic way. I can't really think of any part to edit out. (All the contents are minimalistic.) Adding sentences will loosen up the emphasis against such claims.
 * Also, some people might connect Subak's palm oriented training with European boxing (such that Subak's Takwon/Kwonbub matches with boxing's pankration) especially because Northern Korean has Roman nose of Southern Europe & the Middle East, but there are too much claims against Taekyun Yetbub; it has to be very minimalistic by listing only what the official stance has been & what the related references from centuries ago (proofs) are.

Wikibreaking (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Article
Hello, as mentioned on the Admin's page, once an article has been deleted as the result of a Deletion Discussion, such as was had at Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids, you can't just re-create it, even with a different name. When that happens, the article qualifies for Immediate Deletion. Continually re-creating that is also likely to get you blocked, which nobody wants. I suggest, if you want to completely re-write it, you should do so in Draft space, where you can work on it without it being deleted. You can use the Article Wizard to do that, and it will put it in the right spot.

Also, as mentioned in the deletion discussion, the term "Notability" here means something very specific. It doesn't relate to how important something is, or how many people may be wondering about it, but means that something has been discussed specifically in many reliable sources. See WP:N for all the specifics. Sorry it is going like this, but I leave you these pieces of advice so you don't get blocked, and can still take a crack at writing articles. Crow Caw  21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your excuse for deletion doesn't apply when the title is different. Your excuse for deleting was that the article didn't talk about evolution itself but only about myths. Hence, your excuse doesn't apply when the title is set as "myths".
 * Newspapers count as "reliable sources" which I provided. I already opened a talk section here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz It's a specifically existing topic of significant facts (as in being notable).

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the speedy deletion criteria applies if the article is the same, regardless of what name it is created under. I have moved the article to Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids, which is the Draft space I mentioned above. Crow  Caw  22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you deleted the previous "The evolution of folded eyelids", your excuse was that it didn't say anything about evolution specifically whilst the content was about the existing myths in the topic. So, I recreated using the different article title. I named the title "myths" & the content was about "myths". Why did you delete this time? If you are claiming it is not referenced *because you can't read Korean* despite me having already summarized the quoted newspaper, that's your problem. That doesn't make it not referenced. If you are claiming that a reference in foreign language can't be used, I would like to see that rule as I've seen plenty of foreign references. It's a specifically existing topic of significant facts (as in being notable).
 * Who do I talk to to override your decision (or just to report you)? Where do I upload such petition? Your excuse for deletion doesn't apply when the title is named differently as it is a different topic & it is properly referenced. I will upload again.

Wikibreaking (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a Wikipedia policy that when an article is submitted for AfD, and all parties argue their case, and the closing admin decides that the consensus was to delete, then the article is deleted, which all happened here. Once that happens, it is also Wikipedia policy that you can't just re-create the article again with a different title because you disagreed with the closure. I have moved the article to draft space where you can work on it and get meaningful feedback before it goes "live". If you continue to bypass these policies you will find yourself blocked... I am trying to prevent that from happening but I can't force you to take my advice. Crow  Caw  22:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your excuse was about the title. Your excuse for deletion was that the title was wrong. That the content was about the myths while the title was about evolution. Hence, your nonsense doesn't apply when the title is set as myths. There is nothing to change in the article. It is properly referenced. How does your excuse for removal apply when the title is different?

Wikibreaking (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not just about the title, or everyone would have just voted to rename it, which happens all the time. The arguments put forward were essentially that it was not a proper encyclopedic treatment of either the myths, or the eyelid fold itself. The article repeatedly stated that there were questions and provided a lot of quotes, but didn't really state anything concrete, plus it then drifted from topic to topic. You can correct all these in the draft, and if it then meets the inclusion policy, it will be right back as an article in no time. Crow  Caw  22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it didn't state anything concrete? The article specifically mentioned "here are existing claims". That's very concrete for going over the "existing claims & myths". How much more concrete can you get for introducing existing myths than "here are the myths". Also, it was properly referenced. Also, the relevant scientific facts & historical records were very related to the myths because they were the opposite. You are lying.

Wikibreaking (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is there for you to read. Since you have now resorted to personal attacks, I bid you good day. Crow  Caw  22:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am incensed. Also, when you are saying that something isn't stating anything concrete when the article serves the purpose sufficiently, that is lying.

Wikibreaking (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Korean eyes
I redirected Korean eyes to epicanthic fold. It may contain some content mentioned in the above section. It isn't good to have your only sources be books from the 1800's on such a topic, which most likely contain some degree of prejudiced material. MB298 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave it as an independent topic. Or what? Are you going to talk specifically Korean in an article talking in general? Or what? Are you going to hide this topic specifically on Korean?

Wikibreaking (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Korean eyes


A tag has been placed on Korean eyes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Eye snore  03:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Already left the same message there.

Wikibreaking (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Korean eyes, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. MB298 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The neutrality of this article has been questioned. All I did was quoting academic books on Ethnology. 2. The notability of this article was claimed. It is an existing topic of significant facts, hence it is notable. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability 3. The validity of the sources were questioned. They are all legitimate books on Ethnology. All valid.

Wikibreaking (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple DRVs
Hi Wikibreaking,

You have now opened three simultaneous deletion reviews on essentially the same topic within days of each other:


 * Deletion_review
 * Deletion_review
 * Deletion_review

It is not useful to do this. The original DRV was quite sufficient to discuss all of these possible variations on the topic. You have literally opened a new DRV, on the same topic, every day for the last three days. This is becoming impossible to follow and really quite disruptive - especially when you paste the entire text of the article into a DRV.

PLEASE consider withdrawing (and closing) your two most recent DRVs. The situation is confusing enough without making it worse like this.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No one was replying while a later post was being replied. That's why I reposted. As for the second one on Korean eyes, it was a separate topic. I split the first deleted article into 2 & posted the part with English references. The second one already has some replies, so I am not going to delete all those (that will remove their replies as well). I will take down the third one for now, but if no one replies, I am reposting the third one.Wikibreaking (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that these discussions stay open for seven days. You shouldn't necessarily expect people to reply to you quickly - they aren't obliged to reply at all, particularly if they feel that it would just be a repeat of a previous argument. Thparkth (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't demanding a fast reply. I was merely asking for the same attention at the same time. The petition on "Perfumedly" (it was posted after mine) was replied while my petition was not replied. Also, I obviously feel incensed when you administrators claim that the deletion was done through the proper process when it wasn't. False claims were made on notability & the validity of references. Since those administrators keep on insisting nonsense via deterrence, I just split the article into 2 separate parts to upload the part with English references. (& all of them are centuries old published books available on Google books.) Can't bullshit on that part. After getting that part straight, I am going to argue notability & the validity of references on the myth part. The myth part has Korean references; the Korean eyes part has English references. That's why I split the article into 2.Wikibreaking (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I am not an administrator, and most of the other people who take part in deletion discussions aren't administrators either. Thparkth (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then who (& when) decides to remove an article from deletion or to put an article into deletion? I just feel very incensed. That's why I split my article into 2 different parts. Wikibreaking (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just like most things on Wikipedia, it is decided by consensus of the people involved in the discussion.
 * In this case there were quite a few people arguing that the article should be deleted, and only yourself arguing that it should be kept. The people arguing to delete the article pointed out that it didn't seem to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and others pointed out that the topic would be best discussed as part of the existing Epicanthic fold article. Those are strong arguments for deleting an article, because they directly follow official policies and guidelines.
 * On the other hand, you argued to keep the article. You argued that it was notable, and verifiable, but you didn't provide (for instance) links to newspapers, books, scholarly papers etc which would tend to confirm what you were saying. Maybe these exist, maybe not - I don't know. So no one really understands why you think the topic is notable.
 * So when the administrator came along to assess the discussion he saw a significant number of people with strong policy-based reasons to delete the article on the one side, and just you with no really strong argument for keeping it on the other. So he assessed that the consensus was to delete the article. MBisanz might even have thought that the article should be kept, but his job in that situation is just to assess what the consensus was of the discussion that had already happened, not to insert his own opinions.
 * Then you brought the deletion to deletion review (DRV). When you do that, you are mainly asking the community to form a consensus on these two questions:
 * Did the administrator who closed the discussion make a mistake - did they assess the consensus wrongly?
 * Is there some new evidence that would have changed the outcome of the discussion, if it was known at the time?
 * To be honest I think there is zero chance that anyone will think that the first of these happened. MBisanz closed the discussion correctly. I know you might disagree, but in terms of Wikipedia policies and traditions, it is definitely true.
 * It might be possible for you to persuade people that the second question applies. Maybe you can find some articles, books or papers that clearly and specifically discuss the topic(s) and the ideas you included in the article.
 * Cheers,
 * Thparkth (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Didn't seem to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and others pointed out that the topic would be best discussed as part of the existing Epicanthic fold article. Those are strong arguments for deleting an article", they lied. The definition of notability on Wiki is having been covered as an existing topic & being able to be verified. I provided links for each point. That's why I was saying that false claims were made on notability & the legitimacy of the sources. My article was wrongfully deleted. Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy. Whether many people wish the article to be deleted or not, that doesn't mean any Wiki rule is actually violated. Many people can be wrong while 1 person against them is right. Also, because of some annoying unqualified people claiming "a reference in Korean language doesn't count as a reference", I split the article into 2 separate parts to get approval for each part separately. Anyway, these should be discussed on that deletion review page.Wikibreaking (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Korean raw fish


The article Korean raw fish has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * POV fork

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Be specific which specific part you want to claim whatever. This article is very short; it is a Korean food; there are 6 sentences & 1 quote with 2 references. Many Wiki people tend to avoid being specific. Be specific which specific sentence you object.Wikibreaking (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is already an article about Korean raw fish. The article title is Hoe (dish). The title Korean raw fish has been redirected there, as there should not be several articles about the same subject. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 15:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. I searched with Hoi. That's why. Why did you redirect though instead of adding my content to there? Wikibreaking (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User warning: Combative behaviour
This is to notify you that your recent contributions give rise to a concern that you may not be compliant with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would strongly suggest you read WP:CALM, WP:TEA, and WP:DTS, and pay heed to them. Continuing to engage in combative behaviour runs the risk that you will be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Be specific which specific part is against the rule such as the specific words I used.Wikibreaking (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like kissing ass; I don't like appeasing & manipulating to get what I want. If I wanted to manipulate, then I could have pulled it off very well. That is against my character. I do not want to do such & I still want what I am entitled to. I don't want favors; I want fair entitled services justly. Also, I feel incensed & rightfully so. I shouldn't have to refrain myself from it. It's not against rules. My choices of words are within the gentle boundary. Wikibreaking (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mkdw talk 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per the above - you really need to stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point. We require editors to be civil, and to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Neither requirement is consistent with accusing other editors of lying and (almost) threatening civil action over the repeated deletion of the article. If you're willing to calm down and discuss the matter calmly, then follow the ANI link above and discuss. If you continue to be disruptive, however, you may be blocked from editing. Consider this your final warning. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are claiming disruption, but I am only responding accordantly & rightfully. Who is the one disrupting here? The people who claim a legitimate reference to be not notable or not legitimate? (Especially if they are not qualified to even read it?) Or the victim who is entitled to point out "that's a lie"? I have a right to feel incensed. If they have a problem being told "you lied", then they shouldn't have lied in the first place instead of demanding "don't call it a lie". Wikibreaking (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action in addition to disruptive editing reflecting a battleground editing demeanor. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unblock petition

 * I wasn't talking about single-eyelids (Epicanthic fold). I was talking about double-eyelids, specifically Northern Korean eyes. It's a completely different topic which was properly referenced as visible above.
 * Regarding disruption, if you are claiming that Wiki rule specifically defines "disruption" with "what you don't like", I demand you to show that specific rule. Otherwise, you are violating Wiki rules. I never crossed any line against the rules.
 * Regarding me not having any rights, that's not up to you to decide whether you are talking in legal sense or in Wiki rule sense. I want my entitled rights guaranteed by Wiki rules whether you claim admin abuse is entitled or not. Wikibreaking (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "You are not entitled to anything" & "you have no rights" are just your wishful nonsense. Whether in legal sense or in Wiki rule sense, I do have entitled rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_Abuse "Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal." So, you should be arguing whether you weren't committing admin abuse or not, not whether I have no entitled rights or not because I do have entitled rights.Wikibreaking (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the fully story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_January_17
 * I typed "I don't like kissing ass; I don't like appeasing & manipulating to get what I want. If I wanted to manipulate, then I could have pulled it off very well. That's against my character. I do not want to do such & I still want what I am entitled to. I don't want favors; I want fair entitled services justly. Also, I feel incensed ;& rightfully so. I shouldn't have to refrain myself from it."
 * I demanded that I want fair entitled services justly without having to kiss ass. Then someone claimed that I am not entitled to such service.
 * "You are not entitled to anything, just so you know."
 * So, here is what I typed. I pointed out that whether he meant that I wasn't entitled to get fair service without appeasing by the laws or by the Wiki rules, he is incorrect & that it is not up to him to decide what I am entitled to. I pointed out that admin abuse is stupid & not an entitlement. I should not have to not prove what I am entitled to, especially when my enemies (you) challenge that fact.
 * "If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. If you are talking about the Wiki rules, that's what I meant. When my article does not violate any rule, it should not be removed just by what you want. If you were saying that there is no Wiki rule against admin abuse & that you are allowed to such, that's a separate matter from my article being entitled to an entry by following Wiki rules. Not to mention being stupid."
 * Then I was blocked. As for so-called "disruptive responses", I am entitled to call lies as lies. It's my right. They specifically claimed that the topic was not notable (Wiki defines this by having had a coverage & being able to be verified) & that the references I provided weren't legitimate. However, I pointed out that the topic has had a coverage & that the topic is able to be verified because my references talk about it. I also pointed out that the references I used were from newspaper, Google books, research institutes which are all academically accepted sources in MLA, APA or even Wiki's reference guidelines. Hence, they lied, and I am entitled to point that out especially when they still repeat "not notable & not legitimate sources" as if the fallacy Proof by Assertion makes it so.
 * So, aside from the unblocking request, I am reporting admin abuse for deleting my article & for blocking me. Wikibreaking (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The community is also entitled to recommend you be blocked indefinitely for disruption which it has unanimously. Your block has been reviewed by an uninvolved administrator and will stay in place. Mkdw talk 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked to the block configuration, to avoid wasting any more time here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gimssam sample provided by a Korean encyclopedia.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Gimssam sample provided by a Korean encyclopedia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Korean raw fish
Hello Wikibreaking,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Korean raw fish for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rollingcontributor (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion
This user engaged in chronic block evasion from January to April, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For any talk page watchers who have been trying to follow Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibreaking, see an unblock request at User talk:Bearberserk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the UTRS appeal, Wikibreaking has been urged to follow WP:OFFER and to appeal for unblock again in six months. That is, they can appeal after 25 October, 2019 if they have completely stayed off Wikipedia during that time and have not socked. For the moment, Wikibreaking is still blocked from their talk page and from sending email. I assume they are supposed to make their request at UTRS again in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You weren't told you would be unblocked. WP:OFFER is very clear on this, as is the comment in UTRS. You were told you could apply for an unblock after six months, not that the block would definitely be lifted. In fact, you were explicitly told, and I quote, "Finally, there is no guarantee of sn unblock after the SO period - 6 months is a /minimum/ and in the light of your record it is likely to take significantly longer to get unblocked." Note that you may have been told elsewhere that you'd definitely be unblocked after six months, but I can find no evidence of this and it strikes me as exceptionally unlikely. --Yamla (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I was told by someone I could be unblocked after withdrawing legal threat. Can you check over like notes on my account or something? Also, since I am withdrawing legal threat which was apparently the reason for banning me, what's your new reason for not unbanning me? Wikibreaking (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's on you to show where you were told you'd be unblocked after withdrawing the legal threats, not on us. There's no "notes" on your account where something like that would be tracked, unless perhaps you mean WP:UTRS, which I mention above. Additionally, it is not the case that the legal threats were the only reason for your block. Your block log, which is available here, shows you were blocked in 2016 for legal threats but then had that block extended to include your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, in 2019. In any case, your unblock request is under discussion by the community, over at WP:AN. The community will decide whether or not to lift your block. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the block extended to include my violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE in 2019. That's why I had to wait 6 more months since then, while both my accounts were blocked. Also, it had been years since I stopped using my first account, and I couldn't remember that I had my first account. After I was confronted, I admitted that Wikibreaking was my account, and that I was not aware I was committing SOCK & EVADE. People commonly make multiple accounts on a website. And I did spend the extra 6 months while both my accounts were blocked. I accepted my punishment. And now, I am requesting the ban to be lifted. I will wait. To summarize, I withdrew legal threat, and I already accepted punishment for making 2 accounts on Wikipedia. And it has been years since my first account was blocked.

Wikibreaking (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to what anyone else told you. I think I was very clear that I would restore your talk page access to permit you to make an appeal which would be reviewed by community discussion in my communication with you. I did not at any time tell you that an unblock was guaranteed. If someone else did tell you that, they were wrong. If you thought they did, you were wrong. Your appeal is now being reviewed by the community, and you're probably better off to address the concerns raised there. You may make replies here and ask that they be copied to the discussion on your behalf; that is a permitted use of your talk page during the appeal process. But I advise you carefully consider the concerns other editors have raised prior to responding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your previous block was discussed by the community and the opposition was unanimous. It is abusive to attempt yet another unblock request so quickly after the community rejected your last. I very strongly suggest removing the above request and trying your appeal again no sooner than six months after the community rejected your last request. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

As this user is refusing to listen, I have revoked talk page access. To the reviewing administrator, if you believe the above unblock request is sufficient to bring to the community, please do so and reinstate talk page access. If not, Wikibreaking, please consider this the end of the line. The community is done with you. WP:UTRS will be available to you no sooner than six months from today (no sooner than 2020-05-26), where you'll need to be willing to make a substantially more compelling case to the community, if you wish to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)