User talk:104.232.119.107

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions to 1883 Korean special mission to the United States and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Godtres (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Prince Imperial Waneun, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please discuss the issues on talk page before removal of major content. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm toobigtokale aka Renamed user 1oj3saabam. The content I removed on this page was systemic to hundreds of pages (excessive unsourced details on family trees on Korea-related articles), and I've already discussed these content changes with the people who added them (e.g. User talk:Deuxbleu#Sourcing and detail; there's one or two other users who engaged in this and I've posted on their pages too.). They have expressed no objections to the edits, and I've checked, and across the hundreds of pages that I performed similar edits on (examples here [1]), virtually none of them seem to have been reverted, nor did anyone post on my former talk page to question my edits [2].

I know this matters less because fewer people can see it, but I've discussed this with the Wikipedia Discord on three occasions too. Each time people either agreed that the pruning as a good move or were neutral.

I strongly believe policy is on my side with the edits (namely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:RS). I have done the right thing with discussing the removal of certain edits with the relevant users and leaving edit comments explaining my rationale. This is the first time someone has questioned the edits. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of an edit I made along these lines. I think any editor familiar with Wikipedia's policies would be hard-pressed to explain why an unsourced Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather is desirable information to have on a biography page. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi 104.232.119.107! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Invincible (TV series) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Invincible (TV series), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Indagate (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I'm pretty familiar with the policy (long-time user). I haven't passed the three revert threshold. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Your IP doesn't have a long editing history so gave you the softer warning, but if you are a long-time user you should be more familiar with policies. Didn't say you had broke WP:3RR, that doesn't make what you've done okay, you have made the same edit three times now, twice being reverts of two users, so please stop and just discuss until you have consensus. Indagate (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

About emailing

Special:EmailUser (looks like this is the one) is not available for IP users. You need to directly post your email address somewhere. If you don't want it to be permanently visible, you can

• post it on your user talk page (this page) or a page like Wikipedia:Sandbox, and ask an admin to hide it later; or
• use https://pastebin.com/ , which gives an option for the posted text to expire after a certain period of time.

172.56.232.159 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Here it is: https://pastebin.com/9wXW9B3N 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

labelling edits as "admin stuff"

hello, im gaismagorm. Ive noticed you labelled an edit as "admin stuff" in the summary. while I personally found the edit's contents fine, the summary was not. In general, you shouldn't say you are an admin on wikipedia, unless you are an admin.

have a nice day! Gaismagorm (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh whoops, sorry, that wasn't my intent. I meant "administrative" as "technical busywork". I'll watch that word from now on. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

ah i see, no worries! Gaismagorm (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to March 1st Movement have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Wiiformii (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, this is User:Toobigtokale; I have a long editing history on Wikipedia and am taking a poorly-enforced wikibreak. You just performed a significant reversion; can you explain what the rationale is? Keep in mind that I wrote basically the entirety of this article even after your reversion and have significant plans to continue editing the article. Could you at least wait a week or two until I finish editing to make changes to your liking? Now there's edit conflicts. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There were no sources cited, especially for the claims mentioned in what I reverted. If you need help please check out Citing Sources. Wiiformii (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please look at the version and count the number of sources you removed. Are you thinking of the lead? Are you familiar with MOS:CITELEAD? It reads: Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

Is this the point of confusion? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

From the source cited in the lead section there doesn't seem to be anything referencing disinformation campaigns by the Japanese. Wiiformii (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I was wrong about the source, Also since it seems you are making very large edits I think putting a (Template:In use) may be useful to convey the large edits Wiiformii (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's several misunderstandings. That reference comes before that claim; there's no reason the reference would support it. There's an entire section in the article that backs up the claim... Instead of reverting to an arbitrary point, you should have tagged me somewhere and asked me to put the sources in. That would take me less than a minute to do; instead you reverted over 10 hours of work to an arbitrary point.

Just in case WP:CITELEAD still isn't fully understood, please look at these various featured-level articles: Joseph Priestley House, Knap Hill, Kona Lanes. None of these have any references in the lead. That abides by CITELEAD; the refs for these claims are in the body, as is the case wit hme.

Granted, the claim you mention is indeed controversial and possibly could be cited. But CITELEAD says The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. You did not obtain editorial consensus before the reversion. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Edits can be very easily reverted, if you want I can. I am not too much into it and if you were working hard I respect it. I solely was confused on the first claim I saw. Wiiformii (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do so. And please be more mindful of these kinds of situations in future; I'd like to at least see some acknowledgement that protocol was not properly followed here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on Template:In use; I'll add that after we resolve this. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I deleted it, I just did not want a warning on your username to be conveyed as most people do not enjoy having warnings. Wiiformii (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's ok; in future I recommend you ask the person before reverting lengthy discussions. One-off small mistake messages are probably ok to erase, but some warnings (I'd argue this) provide context for others. Thanks for discussing this with me afterwards. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I am sorry if it caused any troubles and I was truthfully not super aware of WP:CITELEAD to the best of my knowledge. Wiiformii (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's ok; you clearly have good intentions and do a lot of helpful things otherwise. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "poorly-enforced wikibreak"? If you're saying you've been blocked on another account then that's against Wikipedia policy and can get your block extended. Indagate (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RTV and WP:WB. By "poorly-enforced", I mean "I am bad at taking Wikibreaks". You're also capable of checking if I was blocked or not. If I was blocked and trying to evade detection on an IP, why would I openly disclose my previous username and why would I edit basically all the same pages I used to in my same writing voice and in high volume? You can check; my editing behavior is really similar on this ip and my prev account.

I know we had a tense discussion previously, but let's please just bury the hatchet and disengage. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so have no way of checking if you've edited on another account using your IP. I haven't seen you disclose your previous username and nowhere near familar enough with you to recognise what pages you edit and how. Your message just sounded like potentially evading a block so questioned. Indagate (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You're able to check block logs with the usernames I mentioned multiple times on this page. I don't want to turn this into an argument though; I apologize for being confrontational before. My intentions are usually good but my tone often comes off strong; it's upsetting to read an assumption that I was worthy of being banned and then am now dodging said ban. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wiiformii Tagging; this is time sensitive. You caught me in the middle of working on the article. I'd much rather you point out specific problem areas that we can discuss and compromise on, than revert to some arbitrary step in the over 100 edits I've made in this article thus far. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Death's Game, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 20:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This behaviour doesn't align as an ex-EC editor when obviously you were manually reverted twice (I assumed this would have been flagged in edit conflict page) for changing what is obviously a general note (hidden comment) that purposes is there for reference. Furthermore, I also don't see what is the exact purposes and/or intention for changing "x words" to "FIX ME". Care to explain, this WP:IDHT behaviour? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

?? I'm a bit puzzled by this; I'm addressing grammar and giving feedback as per Wikipedia:Peer review/Death's Game/archive1. Are you not seeing the grammar and prose being addressed in these edits? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

FIX ME is because I didn't do another word count, as the summaries are likely to change again in near future as part of the GA review process. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Paper9oll tagging so we can get this resolved 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@104.232.119.107 Of course, you're puzzled because since when did I mentioned on grammar? I was clearly talking about changing "x words" to "FIX ME" twice in the edit summary in which for twice you WP:IDHT completely and still persisted with this disruptive editing by selecting your revision in the edit-conflict page, we are both editing the same portion at the same time. Neither was changing to "FIX ME" addressed in the edit summary for subsequent edits. If you're not willing to do a reword count then kindly don't touch "x words" then as I don't see how it's a improvement and also why "FIX ME" is helpful in any way. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

??? I never received a single notice about an edit conflict, and I didn't notice your intermediate edits until now. I swear this is true; I don't know why you're assuming malace and that I'm acting in bad faith. We know each other and have reached agreements together in the past.

If I do a word count, can we go back to my edits? Because in the process of undoing an invisible comment, you've removed visible edits to users. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't read other parts of this talk page, this is @Toobigtokale btw. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@104.232.119.107 I'm trying to AGF here however the actions made triggered me otherwise. Whether or not, you did or did not encountered edit-conflict page can't be confirmed, this is just my assumptions given that we are editing the same portion i.e. you changing to "FIX ME" and me manually reverting back to "x words" at the same time. Regardless, if you're willing to do a word count then continue otherwise don't edit that portion i.e. "x words" to "FIX ME", you can however continue to edit the grammar or prose that you want instead if you're willing to do reword count. And finally, yes, I know that you're Toobigtokale hence I questioned this behaviour (i.e. persisting in changing to "FIX ME") not aligning with an ex-EC editor from the start above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, all I can offer is my word that I'd never knowingly ignore feedback or edit conflicts. From past experience with me, you know that's true; I sought out and took feedback on my AWB edits. I promise I didn't see any edit conflict notices, nor did I notice your intermediate edits, otherwise I would have stopped.

Out of curiosity, what does "EC" mean? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@104.232.119.107 Ok sure, EC is acronym for WP:Extended confirmed. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Wanna come back?

Hey toobigtokale (if you still go by that),

Happy to see you editing again! We missed you when you were gone. By any chance can you still access your Wikipedia account after the courtesy vanishing? Since you’re editing anyways you might as well go back or make a new account (toobigtokaletwo?) if you can’t reaccess it. Of course, if there’s a personal reason for editing under an IP I don’t want to be a bother. Dantus21 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words 🙂 Not having an account has helped me reduce the amount of time I spend on the site; it's been mildly effective so far and I want to keep it that way for now. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to see it’s been working out for you. Wishing you the best! Dantus21 (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest "twobigtwokale" or a variant thereof...? Godtres (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion lol I may take it up if needed 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

---