User talk:Seefooddiet

Hello, my previous account was User:Renamed user 1oj3saabam. I had previously had it deleted per WP:RTV, but formally decided to come back to Wik.ipedia.Pro. Seefooddiet (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I used these two IPs previously: 104.232.119.107 and 211.43.120.242 (while vacationing in Korea). Both IPs I readily and often disclosed who I was. From this point on I'll be editing only with this account. seefooddiet (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although you never truly left, it is good to see you (officially) back! Dantus21 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated 🙂 seefooddiet (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, are there any other permissions you'd like in addition to extended-confirmed? I noticed your old account also had autopatrolled. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, autopatrolled would be nice too. If you can approve me for AWB that'd be nice too, but I can request that myself as well. seefooddiet (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did both :) Elli (talk | contribs) 23:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! seefooddiet (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Am glad you have returned to editing. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seefooddiet,

I was just taking care of some PROD'd articles on Korean footballers, saw your RTV account name and when I looked into it, saw you were now using this username. Nice to see you back! I posted a good-bye message but it was deleted from your User talk page soonafter, apparently because you had requested to keep this page blank. As long as you weren't being harassed or anything, you might go to your previous account and redirect the User and User talk pages here. Glad we have you back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reverting you at Utoro, Uji. Didn't realize until just shortly ago that it was you. I wrongly concluded from the all caps on the template and the unfamiliar editor name that it was a new user making a test edit of some kind. I'm very, very sorry! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, no worries! More on me for having a different username seefooddiet (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back here.

Queen of Hearts ^talk 00:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(and another good food pun!) Queen of Hearts ^talk 01:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you 🙂 I actually really badly wanted to use "grapesurgeon" but that name was taken 😭 seefooddiet (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know that you're back with a new username. Thanks also for the tips you gave in Death's Game peer review. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 18:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, thank you! Much appreciated 🙏😌 seefooddiet (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seefooddiet, would you know what is the equivalent of 기획 in television production? I mean is it a parameter in {{Infobox television}} template or not? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 18:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe doesn't exist, based on Template:Infobox television#Deprecated parameters (see The "Chronology" parameters...). Maybe could use the related parameter if the future item has its own article already. If not, maybe should exclude from the infobox? seefooddiet (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have another question, is "제작" consider as "Producer(s)"? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so seefooddiet (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're on an actual account again, look forward to seeing more new articles on Korean topics. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 🙂 more to come! seefooddiet (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed that you made recent changes to the dodgeball page removing the main image. Please revert this as it is causing confusion. Thatdodgeballguy (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Could you explain the confusion it is causing? I'm not seeing any posts on the talk page for that article about the image. seefooddiet (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the most well known players in the sport of dodgeball. The point is to help grow the sport. There was no need for it to be changed in the first place. Thatdodgeballguy (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be greatly appreciated Thatdodgeballguy (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Talk:Dodgeball seefooddiet (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was referenced in many places across the web and would be greatly appreciated for reversion. There was no reason to change it in the first place. Thatdodgeballguy (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep comments in one place; let's talk on the dodgeball talk page seefooddiet (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS, it would be up to YOU to start the discussion on the talk page. Also be aware that BLPs are a contentious topic. I am not sure you meant the tone but it did not sound WP:CIVIL when I read it. CNMall41 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to threatening to escalate to RfC without discussion, you may also may want to review the talk page history where the source you used was already stated not to be reliable for inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you should post on the talk page of the respective article, not on my talk page. Nobody can see this conversation. And no, I did not mean to be rude, and talking about going to RFC is not a threat. seefooddiet (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For others reading, this was my edit comment: "Disagree. If want to undo again, please post on talk page. If this escalates I'm willing to go to WP:RFC; I'm pretty confident in this."

I wouldn't say this is rude? It's certainly firm, which was my intent, but nothing in this would constitute a threat to most people. seefooddiet (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I would again suggest checking talk page history prior to being "firm." Threatening to escalate to RfC without discussion (which is the process) is certainly more than "firm" in my opinion. But here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I just said I didn't intend to be rude, and I think most people would agree I wasn't there. There's no need to rib me with the sarcastic quotes, that's explicitly not civil. User edited their comment.

Can we discuss the subject matter on the article talk page? Nobody can see it here, again. seefooddiet (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote and believe it was not your intent. Understand that regardless of intent, the statement was more than firm based on the threat to escalate to RfC in lieu of following the process. And yes, the talk page is where the discussion needs to be had (and already was had if you look at the above link). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly drilling that past talk post into me is also unnecessary.

Please pause for a second. Dial it back. I'm not mad at you and didn't mean to come off rude. Let's please discuss this without drilling things into each other. seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for mentioning the RFC early. It was not meant to be a threat, it was more an expression that I'm confident in my opinion (even with that thread you linked). But your response to this, even after I tried to deescalate, was to continually drill and prod me relentlessly instead of slowing down. I'm still taken aback by how intense your backlash was. seefooddiet (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs dialed back. I do not think you intended any harm based on your statement, but stating that intent or not it wasn't appropriate. When an editor says something like that, it can easily be taken as a threat to someone to not restore the content. Maybe you disagree. There's no deescalation needed as there was no escalation. I am not mad at you either as I don't let Wik.ipedia.Pro stir up feelings. As far as "repeatedly drilling," I was reminding of you the past discussion. Since you didn't address it initially after I provided the link, I was assuming you may have missed it. I'm dropping the stick as I don't have time for back and forth but will gladly opine on the talk page should you start the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even this response is needlessly condescending and combative; no effort to accept my apology or deescalate. How are you not seeing how needlessly aggressive your response is in response to a misunderstanding?

Frankly you win; this discussion was so neurotic and I don't have the emotional energy to deal with how neurotic a talk page discussion about Rober will be. I'll link this discussion on Rober's talk page because it's relevant. seefooddiet (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not understanding the issue. There is no need for an apology. I also was not escalating, only responding to your replies. This isn't a "need to be right" or "win"" situation. I think you can understand how I mistook your tone by the way you are mistaking mine. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But here we are. Unnecessary and meant as a jab.

And yes, the talk page is where the discussion needs to be had (and already was had if you look at the above link). The parenthetical side note here reads sarcastic, the first note about the talk page was sufficient. Furthermore, it leaves no room for discussion; that talk post linked I'd argue is not settled fact, but you present it that way. The wording here was avoidable, not just an innocent reminder.

I'm dropping the stick as I don't have time for back and forth As if my efforts to deescalate are not worth the time.

There is no need for an apology. I also was not escalating, only responding to your replies. Disagree.

I've made no similar jabs to these in this thread. If your next response is just doubling down, I'm not going to reply. Apparently not worth your time anyway, despite the continued responses. seefooddiet (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw from your user page that you are working on Korean articles. When looking at the wiki page for The Korea Herald I saw that it is in a bad state as it relies to heavily on primary sources. At the time I was editing Smilegate and some other korean companies, I found two sources that discuss the Korean Herald to different extents. Since you are interested in Korean articles, I thought you might be interested as a lot of articles probably end up citing this newspaper. I opened a discussion on the talk page here where I go over the sources. In the end, I didn't feel I found enough sources, and I suspect there are much more sources in Korean. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It and other major newspapers on my to-do list because of how often they're cited. I did The Korea Times (America) back in April, and The Dong-A Ilbo in March. seefooddiet (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't nominate the page i created for deletion, please 🙏 Madame Joaquin (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been done; I'm just following Wik.ipedia.Pro policy. If you'd like to keep the article around, you can locate more reliable sources and put them in the deletion discussion. I'll change my vote if you can find more. seefooddiet (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this and this came through my watchlist. According to my knowledge, neither MOS:KO nor WP:NCKO currently stated "hyphen in name is officially discouraged in RR". While, Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal) has the quoted wordings and also clarified at Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:Manual of Style/Korea (2024 Rewrite & Proposal)#Romanization section, this is still a draft as of this comment. May I know if this was a editing confusion and also I don't expect to see (not from you as I have faith) similar changes being pushed due to this precedence, when the MOS draft isn't yet in production. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this a bit. The current MOS (not the draft) says to use RR. Even if it doesn't talk about the hyphen, the official RR guidance does. In other words, regardless of which version of the MOS is being applied, hyphens are discouraged. seefooddiet (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, until the whole/partial draft is in production that already explicitly mentions on official RR stand and hyphens on RR usage, before we start to discouraged usage of hyphens in {{Korean}} and {{Infobox Korean name}}. At least, we have an explicitly official English Wik.ipedia.Pro documentation to reference on hyphens in RR on where is it indeed discourage. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I lean agree; explaining the edit each time is too cumbersome. I'll hold back on similar hyphen removals until the draft is approved. Thanks for bringing this up! seefooddiet (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the understanding. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind providing comments on Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources about reliable sources? I found the current source list lackluster and have suggested more over there, but that talk page is not very active. You're one of the few I know who're able to analyze them. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I'll be talking about some prominent sources over there next few weeks, and I'll appreciate if you drop by occasionally. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page is on my watchlist so I'll see it. Thanks for raising these discussions! seefooddiet (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize you were your previous account at first—welcome back! Remsense ‥ 论 01:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it 🙂 seefooddiet (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously didn't go through them all to check if every single one was made by you, but since they are similar and have similar deletion rationales, I figured that they might be. (From an initial batch of 111 I sifted out one that was prodded by LibStar and one by Simione) If that's the case, it is obviously a misunderstanding or misuse of the WP:PROD process. Do you understand why? It's because people have to have the chance to go through the various candidates, and see if they really are worthy of deletion. Maybe some or even tens of them are, but the possibly good ones are lost in an ocean. 10 prods in a day, maybe, even that is stretching it, but 109 is bordering on and also looks like some kind of WP:POINT. Editors have to show more diligence than this - and also provide more accurate reasons for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's a misunderstanding; I apologize. I should have done more due diligence in understanding how PROD works before using it so much.

What's the best path for fixing this? Is it possible to mass dePROD, and if so does that close the door for a second PROD? seefooddiet (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Generally speaking, articles shouldn't be PRODed twice, but you can nominate them for deletion through WP:AFD. Part of the WP:PRODNOM process (prong 4) is to consider alternatives to deletion first, which includes improving the article by editing. I interpret that to mean that the PROD nominator should do a name search of both the English and native name first to see if there are sources. I'm going through them to see which have sourcing now but I'm not sure if I can get to them all. --Habst (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be going through my noms and attempting to verify them soon. seefooddiet (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While being mindful of the fact that I didn't do enough due diligence or research before some of these prods, I'm a little skeptical of some of the deproding. [1] Some of these sources given during the deproding aren't very substantial. I may move to a deletion discussion for some of them regardless. seefooddiet (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet, thanks, I think that is fair. Re: the link, Olympedia is actually not a wiki, it's run by Bill Mallon and was officially affiliated with the Olympics at the time that profile was added, so I think it's suitable to use as a source especially when biography prose like the Worlds finishes are added. --Habst (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. It is inappropriate to mass PROD – with no BEFORE whatsoever – well over 100 historical Olympians with the only explanation effectively being 'not notable' (an argument to avoid). I removed the PRODs; I'd say that likely even a majority of those might be notable (given South Korea seems to have decent coverage of their Olympians), especially if one were to actually look in the appropriate places (e.g. South Korean newspaper archives). You can AFD some of them now that they've been dePRODed, but please do some sort of BEFORE search next time and make sure you're doing it in a reasonable quantity; no one is going to be able to sort through the notable ones when there's over 100 nominated rapidly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, I apologize. It won't happen again. seefooddiet (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Busan

added a link pointing to Donghae

Gangwon Province, South Korea

added a link pointing to Donghae

Suwon

added a link pointing to Hwaseong

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Busan

added a link pointing to Donghae

Gangwon Province, South Korea

added a link pointing to Donghae

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some fixes of "the the", and I noticed one of your AWB edits changed:

According to the [[Korea Times]]

to

According to the [[The Korea Times]]

I just wanted to say those automatic redirect replacements should be used with care and ideally individually checked when you have them enabled in an edit. Not a big deal, just something worth keeping in mind with AWB functions that change prose. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I really do check every individual change; I just make some mistakes. I'll add a line in my script to check for that error. seefooddiet (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kang Full

added a link pointing to Hwaseong

Lee Choon-jae

added a link pointing to Hwaseong

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge Dex Kim Jin Young to his Korean Wik.ipedia.Pro, Dex (Youtuber). The fans asked for an International Wik.ipedia.Pro page for Dex since they are unable to search for the korean wiki in english on Google. Moreover, the DEX Kim Jin Young page has more updated and detailed facts about Dex. Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or if all the details on the DEX Kim Jin Young page can be transferred, and the fans could search his Wik.ipedia.Pro page in english, that would be great. Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengoshi0, the fans can do what they like on Wikia, not here. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all korean celebrities has an international Wik.ipedia.Pro page. What is the basis of having this deleted? Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what an "international Wik.ipedia.Pro page" means. You made a new article under a bad name. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An international Wik.ipedia.Pro page would mean - searching Dex's name in english and his Wik.ipedia.Pro page showing up. Anyway, if that could be done, I couldn't care less if the article gets deleted. All the fans wanted is just to have a searchable Wik.ipedia.Pro page for Dex as they thought he is famous enough to have one. Bengoshi0 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That already can be done through WP:REDIRECTs. You just need to create various redirects that point to a single page. seefooddiet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say "thanks" for the work you're doing at that article. Joyous! Noise! 18:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it; Wik.ipedia.Pro's reputation for rigor also impacts my own writing on the website and I was in a unique position to contribute as a Korean speaker. seefooddiet (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyeongchon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dongan District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO, I just noticed you renamed the template while I was editing, so now there are two ethnic groups pages for South Korea. You can delete Template:Ethnic groups in Republic of Korea if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoshuo (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi seefooddiet, your AWB cleanup script is sometimes adding |trans-script-title= to citation templates instead of |script-title= (example). That isn't a valid parameter, so it's causing CS1 errors. Please fix the script to not cause errors. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Will add that now. Thanks for pointing that out! seefooddiet (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]