User talk:Melonbarmonster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chronological Archives
1

1 Japanese people
2 Block
3 Block review
4 petition
5 Kimchi
6 Mediation
7 Oops
8 Request for Mediation
9 re: Mediation
10 Opening Statement

[edit] Japanese people

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japanese people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Endroit 17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi Melonbarmonster, you have been reported for 3RR violation on Japanese people and have been blocked for 24 hrs. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR policy, and when you come back, please do your best to follow our rules. Many thanks, Crum375 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the tabulation of reverts, you'll find the first reported revert was a good faith edit and not a revert at all. I've only made 3 reverts thus far. Please review the history page of the article. I've also sent a request for review. Thanks. melonbarmonster 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized now what has happened over here, and I'd like to be on record saying that I don't believe that this particular case constituted a 3RR violation — at least according to the letter of the policy — and that if punishment was deemed necessary, it should have been doled out in equal amount to Endroit. In the past I sometimes thought you were being less than civil, but I like to hear both your opinions and Endroit's opinions at Talk:Japanese people and I'm glad that you came back to the talk page again with productive intentions and no evidence of anger once your block expired. Dekimasu よ! 14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

Here is the 3RR report, to which I added the diff of the version reverted to:

Previous version reverted to: 18:04, 24 January 2007

Diff showing insertion of the word 'forced' by User:Melonbarmonster: [1]

Melonbarmonster, AFAICT there are clearly 4 reverts, all inserting the word 'forced', identical to that same word you inserted in the 'version reverted to'. Many thanks, Crum375 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're not correct on the facts and I did mention "among other changes" besides the "compulsory vs. forced" issue. That January version of the edit which you've dug up was rejected in the talk page for redundancy since "forced" and "repressed" both imply similar negative connotations. My last version(reported as 1st revert) was a different compromise from the January version of the sentence in question(even if it looks similar to you) and was accepted by the same editors since I compromised by replacing "repressed" with a more neutral description of "colonized". I also changed "forced cultural assimilation" to "forced assimilation". Even though these changes seem insignificant, these subtle changes have been tweaked, reworked and make up the entire history of discussion regarding this sentence! The reported "first revert" was in fact an original compromise and original rewording of the sentence! It was not an undoing of previous edits or reversion to a previous version. Check the talk page of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_people#February_NPOV_discussion to verify progression of edits and tweaks to this sentence and the ensuing discussion which documents the issues regarding the rewording of this sentence. melonbarmonster 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster, I have no doubt that you are sincere, but it seems very clear to me as an uninvolved party that all that matters is that there is your initial version where you added 'forced', then there are four separate reverts where you inserted the same word. To me that is clearly a WP:3RR violation. If some other admin feels this is not a textbook example of 3RR, they can review the case, explain why it's not 3RR, and unblock. Crum375 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is another summary, to make it even clearer. Melonbarmonster is disputing his 3RR block on Japanese people. For the benefit of any admins looking at this report, the violation was as follows:

Version reverted to: 18:04 24 Jan, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
1st revert: 17:15, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
2nd revert: 17:26, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
3rd revert: 17:36, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
4th revert: 18:23, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."

Thanks, Crum375 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand why you would think that just because an edit adds the word "forced" that it's a REVERT and not an ORIGINAL EDIT. If there's a disagreement about the wording of a sentence, different reworking may include or not include certain words and still be an original edit. I don't understand why you're so adamant in bending over backwards to interpret this as a REVERT while ignoring the context of the situation. According to your reasoning, if you just come up with ONE particular wording of a sentence that uses "forced" that means you can't EVER use the word "force" again in future wordings of the sentence or it's a REVERT because of that word! That MAKES NO SENSE and would RUIN WIKIPEDIA. The existence of "forced" in that sentence doesn't preclude a particular reworking of that sentence from being an original, compromised EDIT.

What you need to do is follow the progression of the tweakings of this sentence and read the talk page which documents the discussion and tweakings of the sentence. More evidence that my EDIT was an orginal, compromised EDIT and NOT a revert is supported by the fact that it was accepted by a third editor(Dekimasu who was around from the beginning of this dispute) into the text of the article. If it was merely a revert, he would have rejected it. But the fact was that it was an original compromise is why it is now part of the article and why it proves that my EDIT was NOT a REVERT. Thanks. melonbarmonster 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear opinions of other admins in this matter, if possible. To me this is clearly a classical 3RR violation, but I am open minded. Crum375 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Read part of the discussion in GergeHerbert's talk page. It seems you are still representing my recent edit as being the same as my January edit because they both contain the word "forced". This is factually wrong and you're not addressing my explanations as to why my recent edit is a progression from my January edit. Slimvirgin even states that they are "identical" edits and you and George just take her word for it. It is FACTUALLY wrong to say that my "edit" brought back the sentence to it's state in January. Those two are DIFFERENT versions of that sentence. The January edit was rejected. My recent edit takes reasons for past rejection into consideration and hence was incorporated into the text of the article. The sentence has evolved and my proposed edit was an orginal edit and not a revert. I don't know why you guys were concerned about the January edit being a month back. Even if it was an hour back, if it reflects honest progression and evolution of edits, it is not an revert. And not all sides used the talk page. The reporter only joined the talk page after unilaterally reverting my edit twice.

A classical 3RR violation would be one in which the first revert is a clear undoing of the edits made by other editors. That is not what happened here.

Your interpretation of the 3RR makes it a REVERT to use a word more than once when you're proposing different wordings of a sentence in trying to resolve edit disagreements. That makes no sense. More often than not, you have to use the same words in different ways to try to resolve edit differences. You're interpretation makes this impossible.melonbarmonster 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is being disputed by admins I respect, so I may be wrong. I still feel that you technically didn't 3RR violate at this time, though.

In any case, both you and Endroit both were pushing the envelope. The 3RR policy doesn't mean that you're always allowed 3 reverts; less can be disruptive. The two of you could have stopped earlier and asked for further input or discussion, mediation or some sort.

This is exactly the sort of situation where you should stop and get someone else involved in the discussion.

That said, I leaned the other way, and I'm taking the policy question of how 3RR policy applies up to get a real answer.

Please don't be discouraged by all this. Your block expired normally, you can edit away again. Just please do so slightly more carefully in the future. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine and I understand. While I hvae no problem just waiting out the block, I'm still trying to bring attention to this and get more feedback in hopes of some sort of rasonable understanding bc I feel like the other admins are wrong.

From what I can gather from your talk page Crum still doesn't have his facts right. Crum is still representing my first edit as a reversion to an edit that I proposed back in January(mind you he had no idea about the January version when he first blocked me!!!). Those two versions contain similar elements(such as "force") but they are not the same! There are many compromised elements present in my recent edit that were not in the January version which is why it was supported by a third editor who had rejected my January edit proposal. Slimvirgin and Crum are wrongly ignoring the evolution between those two versions(documented in the History and Talk page of "Japanese people"). I've explained this over and over but Crum has yet to respond on this point and is stuck on the fact that "force" was added in both the January edit and my recent edit and slimvirgin(and perhaps other admins) seems to have just taken Crum at his word.

My 2 cents on the policy question is that I think there has to be some issues that need to be clarified:

1. There has to be a policy that enables administrators and editors to distinguish a REVERT and a normal EDIT when the edits involve same words which are being reworked, reused in a normal editing process by editors working out disagreements. My case presents an example when simply looking for same edit elements(such as looking for addition of "force" in place of "compulsory") misses the natural progression of edits that may use, delete, reuse the same edit elements in different variation. E.g., just bc "force" was proposed in multiple edits doesn't mean that each edit containing that word is automatically a REVERT. Admins should be capable of looking beyond reappearance of a single "edit" element and distinguish REVERTS from instances when editors are engaged in normal editing with edit proposals that contain different variations of the same edit element. To ignore the existence of this distinction in policy creates a ridiculous situation in which editors can't propose different and original uses of edit element(s) from previous edit versions ecause it would be considered a REVERT. This is not what the 3RR and wiki policy against RW are trying to prevent.

2. A clear, classic example of a revert is when an edit changes the text back to a previous version in whole or in part. However, it must be noted in policy that this doesn't preclude editors from reusing elements of previous edits in novel ways or in a normal edit process to trying to resolve differences. You want editors to do more of this: to rework and propose compromised versions of previously disagreed elements in new arrangements and compromise and be flexible. This is how you prevent edit wars.

3. If RW'ing is deemed enough for a block, the block must be also placed on the other party engaged in the same level of RW'ing. It makes no sense to block only the reported party(reported by the RW opponent) for RW while taking no action against the reciprocating party.

4. The process of review of Unblock requests must be conducted by third party admins. Admins who placed the Block becomes a biased party as soon as review is requested and are more likely than neutral admins to be unwilling to overturn their own decision. It is unfair to make blocked editors who may have been wrongly blocked to have the burden of convincing the admin that they were wrong. This defeats the purpose of review and is bad policy.melonbarmonster 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] petition

{http://www.petitiononline.com/comfortw/petition.html} please sign the online petition to the Japanese government, regarding the comfort women issue. thanks. Odst 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) melonbarmonster 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimchi

I love what you did to the kimchi article, but I have changed it back to link Chinese cabbage with the mention of nappa, since I usually see it called Chinese cabbage in supermarkets. Hope you think that's reasonable. Also, Napa redirects to Chinese cabbage anyways. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese cabbage encompasses a variety of vegetables that are not used for kimchi. Only the napa variety, also known as chinese white cabbage, is used commonly for kimchi. It's more accurate to use napa cabbage rather than a generic term. melonbarmonster 06:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Karate, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Oops

Sorry for the misspelling of your name. RogueNinja 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Karate.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] re: Mediation

i am doing the mediation on the karate talk page but we can do it on the case request page if you want more security.Razor romance 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Statement

Please add your opening statement to the mediation page for karate.

Thanks! RogueNinja 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/l/User_talk%7EMelonbarmonster_ed70.html"