User talk:Seefooddiet

Previous account

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 Wikipedia. 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]

Welcome back!!!

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]

I'm sorry

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]

Welcome back!

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]

Doraon geoseul hwanyeonghamnida

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]

Welcome back

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]

Please revert your recent changes on the Dodgeball page

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]

Mark Rober

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 Wikipedia 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]