User talk:KimYunmi
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Copying within Wikipedia
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Eight-legged essay into Dramatic structure. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dramatic structure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clayton Hamilton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 23
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dramatic structure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Old California.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
June 2023
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I said when I changed the information that I was changing the information in the article to what the sources actually said. No one fact checked, but I took the time to fact check, read the thesis cited, added the page number to the source (Page 27, by page number of thesis, not by typing it in, BTW.) and added what the thesis paper actually said, rather than making it up as the article did–which BTW, the original article attributed quotes to the wrong person.
- People also tried to pull that on another source in the article prior, Mario de Valdes y Cocom and I lined it up with what the original source said, making people raging mad. They thought Valdes was against the idea that Charlotte was Black, and then when I changed it with quotes, etc, then they got raging mad at me and then when I pointed out that it came from the article already posted, but wasn't properly read, then they turned against Valdes, trying character assassination, which, BTW, isn't NPOV, and then tried to add an entire Portuguese book, but failed to cite the page number or any original quotes, which I also flagged as inappropriate because there was no way to fact check it was true and then no one wanted to hunt down the page numbers, so the book got deleted as counter proof. This was long, long prior to the existence to Bridgerton. BTW, Frontline says the original, original article was 1997, not 1999, which means there is an earlier article than cited. Again, simple fact checking.
- Same was happening with the thesis cited. The Gregory Bethany paper was improperly cited and the information skewed such that the quotes were the wrong attribution. The quotes used were wrong in the first place, that's not what the thesis said, because I spent time reading it in full, then going back to the section and then looking at it and summarizing the points one by one and putting the quotes in the CORRECT place. Quotes Springer used were attributed to Rogers, so I moved them the the correct location and gave proper attribution and names according to the Bethany paper. I also cleaned up references which made no mention of Rogers at all, by thoroughly reading the articles in question and seeing if the claims were true. Some were and some weren't, if it didn't relate, I cut them.
- If you're mad that someone added an attribution incorrectly, not my fault I fact checked. Take it up with the person who added the thesis paper and then tried to bend it to what they wanted it to say rather than what it actually said. Someone needs to take the time to make sure the sources line up with the article--I have done this with other articles on wikipedia as well--A character's name was wrong on Reply 1998, so I fact checked and changed it to the correct translation.
- Also there was added quoted material that the original sources never said to make the source look factually wrong, rather than line it up with the source and the source's intention. It's an NPOV issue when you add quotes that are not there to make the source look wrong. If you think I'm wrong, then read the thesis yourself and all attributing articles in my edit one by one and then you'll know I'm right. Page 27-28 of the thesis. And the Frontline article. And then the articles I cut didn't say anything of the sort, so were false attributions trying to make the counter argument look better. But was that the correct move? You are 100% welcome to check my fact checking, but you'll find I'm correct. KimYunmi (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring only to the completely uncited bit that you added and I removed. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, it was cited in the thesis, which is the frame for the whole first paragraph. It is correct. I only shifted the first paragraph to what the thesis actually said. You can read about it on Page 28, I believe, of the Thesis it's either page 27 or 28 (Again, by number of page of thesis, not typing it in). The parts about Rogers being Jamaican-American come from his book, BTW, which is cited as a whole. The whole first paragraph is page on 2 pages of the thesis. I'd encourage you to read the thesis and then assess how close or far it is and then assess how frequently it should be cited, but the original used it as evidence for the entire first paragraph, and as such evidence doesn't need to be re-added by most conventions. But if you want to read the thesis after what I said, as a summary of the thesis, then you can go ahead. But what I said is true to the spirit of the thesis cited. This also clears up why Valdes, who is an expert in Black Diaspora might catch onto it, which is why I added it--because it lends more clarity. I did add the page number for this very reason where the information come from--because I think with especially contentious material it should be easier to look up, not harder. KimYunmi (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I know it was in the thesis, which I read afterwards. I am able to read. At the time it was added, it was uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, it was cited in the thesis, which is the frame for the whole first paragraph. It is correct. I only shifted the first paragraph to what the thesis actually said. You can read about it on Page 28, I believe, of the Thesis it's either page 27 or 28 (Again, by number of page of thesis, not typing it in). The parts about Rogers being Jamaican-American come from his book, BTW, which is cited as a whole. The whole first paragraph is page on 2 pages of the thesis. I'd encourage you to read the thesis and then assess how close or far it is and then assess how frequently it should be cited, but the original used it as evidence for the entire first paragraph, and as such evidence doesn't need to be re-added by most conventions. But if you want to read the thesis after what I said, as a summary of the thesis, then you can go ahead. But what I said is true to the spirit of the thesis cited. This also clears up why Valdes, who is an expert in Black Diaspora might catch onto it, which is why I added it--because it lends more clarity. I did add the page number for this very reason where the information come from--because I think with especially contentious material it should be easier to look up, not harder. KimYunmi (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was referring only to the completely uncited bit that you added and I removed. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tonkotsu ramen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yatai.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) I know the above is a bot, but I fixed it.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Your recent edits to Story structure
[edit]Please take a close look at your recent edits to story structure. Make sure they are what you intended and are all complete sentences (in particular, see the dangling incomplete sentence, "It is falsely attributed to").—Anita5192 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)