Talk:Bae Yong-joon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Correction of false information is not censorship!

Mirlen, Mr. Tan et al: I'm correcting false information. I don't work for Mr. Bae. I'm sorry if you want Wikipedia to be an online gossip rag instead of an online encyclopaedia.

Perhaps you should go edit Uncyclopedia from now on.

(back to rant) As can be seen from the following statement:

"A suggestion: Before posting any personal information about Bae Yong Joon publicly, please contact his management company, BOF, to make sure of the veracity of the information you are posting. BOF: http://bofkorea.com - Thanks!"

The page appears to have been sanitized by persons working on Bae's behalf, or by fans of his.

Korean news souces reported 8 March 2006 that the Wikipedia article on Bae Yong Jun included information that should be a matter of privacy, such as the name of an old girlfriend. An example can be seen here:

http://sports.hankooki.com/lpage/entv/200603/sp2006030807261158390.htm

You will see in "Page History" that on 9 March 2006 there was a flurry of editing activity, and now the page begins with the statement above about contacting his management company "before posting personal information about Bae Yong Joon publicly." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oranckay (talk • contribs) .

Eh, doesn't state in Wikipedia somewhere that we are NOT censored? I do not like the idea of Wikipedia turning into a censored encyclopedia. In a way, if Wikipedia did get censored it destroys the purpose of allowing everyone to edit the "free encyclopedia." —Mirlen 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many links & Clean-up

There are way too many links on this article. Wikipedia's article should not be a link farm or serve as a directory of links. I overhauled with the blogs—we should really keep fansites to a minimum, unless the information of those sites were used in the article.

Also, the 'About Bae-Yong Joon' section could be merged into either the overview or his career. And is the commercial section really needed? An actor should be noted for his/her films/dramas/etc., not commercials. —Mirlen 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information

There has been a recent scam of removal of personal data on Bae Yong Jun. Please post violent objections here and explain why. Removal of reasonable data from wikipedia is considered as Wikipedia:Vandalism, and POV is unaccepted: See Wikipedia:NPOV. See further comments I posted on history. Thanks. Mr Tan 17:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bae Yong Joon

First, welcome to wikipedia. I can forgive you, since I believe that you are new to wikipedia. I am happy that you are at least keen enough to discuss this matter with me.

I would suggest that you look at famous personalities such as Jodie Foster, Richard Gere. There is no harm mentioning personal information in general, because every piece of information influences the outlook of an article, and thus attracts the reader as a good article (See Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. I did cite sources, as by Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, and the very External Links section provides the essential citations. Look at the fan craze section and the x fact--an internet link serves as a citation. Furthermore, he had seperated. I believe that Bae wouldn't mind about it so much--in fact, he officially publicised this fact. All information on Bae on the internet are officially acknowledged by Bae. Provate informmation, such as his home address---you will never find it on the net. Did I violate his provacy, in this case?

In contrast, your proposed edition of his Acting Career tells only the roles he acted as in his filmography. And also, I do not wish to see Ppilku removed---he did act in a role in this movie, only that it is a minor role---our objective on wikipedia is to make it the most authorative source of information in the world. Perhaps you can look at Wikipedia:Manual of style before reconsidering your edits.

Also, from the comment stated on Talk:Bae Yong Joon that the Bae's company staff and that many of his fans (including me, of course, but I'm neutral) are opposed to the content of wikipedia--cited in an Hankooki article cited on the talk page of Bae. This is a serious matter that his staff should not poke into---look at Marty Meehan. A section has even stated his wikipedia involvements on "correcting" his personal data has been edited and a page on Wikinews:Story preparation/ Research-United States Department of Justice workers among government Wikipedia vandals his staff has been put up. The American media has even reported of Wikipedia involvement of his staff---there are no other personalities who does such things besides him for now. This is ultimately bringing a smear to Bae's reputation---parallel to Meehan case, sad to say.

Bae has done nothing much controversial, as far as I know, and he is a good man. However, sooner or later, I'm afraid that if the wikipedia controversy continues to be visible on the news media on Bae's article on Bae, he might end up the same fate as Marty Meehan. I won't edit it, but there are lots of other zealous wikipedians who would not hesitate. As I say, wikipedia is a fierece and wild place, at least to some extent. I have suffered before. Also, please don't use vulagrities on me. Wikipedia:No personal attacks deals such behaviour seriously. Please be gracious.

Edit as you wish, but please do not remove information explicitely just because you believe that my edits contains false information/old, dead rumors of Bae. Comb his official site and official fanpage in all avaliable languages---Korean, English, Japanese and Chinese are the most readily avaliable sources, especially the links cited in the external links. Ask me only if you really can't find the points you still doubted, but please don't take matters into your own hands, and let's settle it as swiftly as possible. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tan

Forgive me? You should be begging Mr. Bae's forgiveness. I'm sorry if the National Enquirer isn't hiring right now, but posting continued lies about someone doesn't make you morally superior.

I tried to email you, but apparently you're too cowardly to put up your real contact information.

Fact: The supposed "girlfriend" link leads to a page of speculation and gossip, not fact. Please take your vacation time from Wikipedia to try to learn the difference.

Fact: you did get his family's names wrong. Repeatedly. If you check with official sources instead of fan pages, maybe you can get something right.

Fact: Fan pages are not always correct. Not even for Jodie Foster. Honest.

Fact: Ppilku isn't listed on his filmography because he was an extra in the film. Please check official sources instead of fansites and gossip columns. Thank you.

As for Marty Meehan, if threatening BYJ with smear tactics because people want Wikipedia to contain correct information instead of gossip, speculation, and just plain wrong entries, your vacation is badly needed.

I have combed his fansites and official sites, and I know the difference between gossip, wishful thinking (like on the part of the men who recently released Ppilku to video claiming BYJ in a starring role), and facts. If you would stick to facts instead of trying to be defamer.com for the Hallyu set, it would make things a hell of a lot simpler.

Thanks for the advice on formatting. I admit I'm kind of lost when it comes to that. But yellow journalism, I know - I used to write for The Star. Yeah, the one in the supermarket. So I know from tabloid garbage, and when it masquerades as a serious encyclopaedia entry, it makes me sick, Ignatius.

I live in Honolulu sometime, and would love to sit down and debate why you think posting lies is better than posting the truth sometime over a lavender bubble at Coffee or Tea?, I'm willing to listen. But if you're going to get all pretentious over "he deserves to be maligned and lied about, he's a celebrity", you're not going to get very far with me.

Reply (content pasted from Fabshelly's page)

Relax, please. You are too agitated.

Firstly, if you can prove that Bae is so objective to wikipedia's content, please inform him or you yourself to approach User:Jimbo Wales and his staff for wikipedia's etiquette and standards.

I did not post lies or false information. Also, it is my right to decide whether to release/publicise my e-mail address. To stop adding fuel to fire, please be gracious, for Wikipedia:No personal attacks severely deals with people who lack courtesy like you, such as using the word "cowardly". I can approach you on harsh lines if you go on at this rate.

I"ll prove to you right now. Apparently you never comb the Chinese and Japanese websites on him. If you can't comprehend Chinese/Japanese/Korean, ask a translator. I am very bad in translating.

• Parents and family names: [1]. I can read Chinese, and this website is cited in the external links, and I converted their names to English, that's all. Also, fan pages do make contact with Bae himself. Please browse that fan page thoroghly, and it is cited in this very article--external links section.

• Ppilku: Japanese filmography--[2], [3], cineseoul profile [4]. He acted as a side role, yes, but why omit mention? Take Arnold Schwarzenegger's Around the World in 80 Days (2004 film). He acted as a side-role, but that doesn't amount to him being discredited. And also, I never use gossip columns as sources.

• Fan pages obtain information from the actor himself. Thus they are considered authorative. One should not narrow his sources. Also, articles from newspapers are reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources first. I also get sources from Lianhe Zaobao and The Straits Times on news about Bae. All national newspapers are also reliable sources.

I only mention that Bae's status was similar to Marty Meehan---his officers, and fans, like Bae, are trying to distort information to suit their own needs. I never mentioned that Bae is the conspirator. Instead of me defaming him, you are doing exactly to me. Sadly. Regardless of my job or social status, all legislative laws applies to all people. Thus there is no need to ask for apology for this uproar is caused by people around him, just like Marty Meehan, sadly. Bae and Meehan are both innocent. They (People around them) never edit wikipedia in accordance to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. All people are welcome to edit regardless of background but they must meet the above criteria: Neutral point of view, and provide Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Browse this page itself if you still oppose to my standards of gauging reliable sources. With proper sources, how can you denounce that my information is false?

And also, I would at least ask you to remove the translated article of [5] and paste it on this discussion page if you wish to use it for discussions. Please go also through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before going ahead with your actions. By the way, the article above states an editor's opinion of Bae's information in wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Manual of style and Wikipedia:Notability (people), both the arrangement of the article and content cites that my version gives much more general and appropriate coverage of a person's publicised data. Private data can be found nowhere in the world except the person and the people closest around himself. Thus, if I can't provide appropriate sources by wikipedia's standards, fair enough to doubt my authenticity of my contributions. But that's not the case. If you insist, check again [6] and prove me wrong.

And lastly, please sign of your name with four tides like this: ~~~~. Also, any further unreasonable arguement or charges against me would be refered directly to a wikipedia's adminstrator, for I am too busy to entertain such things. Ask questions if you still have doubts. I hope all these answers all your questions. Mr Tan 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Violation of wikipedia's laws

There has been a contest of two different editions of this article after Koh voiced out his complains. User:Fabshelly, has been informed of violating the official policies and guidelines of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, a subsection of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is an official policy, ignorance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. If, User:Fabshelly still fail to abide by these laws despite being notified in all aspects, such acts can be considered as vandalism (See Wikipedia:Vandalism).

As for me, while Fabshelly has accused me of posting false information on Talk:Bae Yong Joon, I have already patched up by adding essential citations to my contributions in accordance to the standardised guideline of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thus there should be no more reason to why my contributions be eliminated repeatedly despite abiding all the above laws in Good Faith.

Wikipedia's guidelines, especially Official policies, are something which all users must abide with in order to be in wikipedia.

I have also asked for page protection of this article, in order to calm things down. Concern/Complains by Koh only shows a one man's opinion of wikipedia. It is not a law enforcement, and has nothing to do with Mr. Bae Yong-joon himself. [7] It is a scandal casued by people around him--fans and officers working under him. See Marty Meehan's controversy for comparison. Mr Tan 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Defence statement against Fabshelly's allegations

User:Fabshelly accused me that I vandalised the page for personal agenda. A sub-page of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, an official policy, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states that Wikipedia does not give legal advice against opinions posted by Koh Gyudhae. On top of that, instead of admitting his mistakes, he turned around and said that I am supporting my own opinion[8].

I have cited proper sources [9], in accordance to media-based magazines and Wikipedia's guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which states Bae's acknowledgements and announcements about some of his personal matters. If Fabshelly and Koh is against me, please go and sue Mediacorp's I-weekly magazine. As a wikipedian, I am an ordinary folk who obtains and transmits information from these media. I would hereby Fabshelly reconsider this fact before making reverts which amounts to vandalism, solely being informed that he is violating wikipedia's laws and policies which all wikipedians should abide with and not go against. Otherwise disciplinary action would be taken by local adminstrators, or even banning from editing like User:Paektu. Mr Tan 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy section

Is Bae Yong Joon involved in these criticisms and edits or is it just his fans? If it is just his fans, I think it is not appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article about Bae Yong Joon and probably too minor to include anywhere. Also, please fix the sources, some of them go to dead pages (the two external link footnotes). —Centrx→talk • 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. I've come to have a go at mediating in this case, per the request. To help me get an understanding of the issues here, could each side please present below a brief statement of what they see as the dispute. Please do not add comments to the other side's statement. This should help me get an idea of the dispute. --David.Mestel 06:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Centrx and meditators

The link on Koh's Gyudhae's? A section is at least needed to be elaborated. But I believe that mention must not be ommitted, similar to those of Marty Meehan--he is not involved in the wikipedia's scandal but yet a page/section is mentioned about this difficult scandal. Actually, I don't think Bae has any involvment in the case, according to Koh Gyudhae's article which only mentions his officers and some fans about wikipedia (which contradicts to wikipedia's laws), but I can't be sure.

Whatever it is, I must conclude that Fabshelly is very wrong to accuse me of saying that I am adding untrue facts[10]--apparently I did cite my sources properly, in accordance to standards set by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mr Tan 06:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Would whoever is opposing Mr Tan like to state their case? Of course, I can't force you to engage in mediation, but I must warn you that if you chose not to do so, it may reflect badly on you in any further action. --David.Mestel 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What happened? Who vandalized the article?

If someone vandalized the Bae article by removing a lot of content, then copy/paste the removed information back into the current article right now.

Also, who is the user that is vandalizing? Please leave your name. Shame on yourself, since you feel yourself as inferior and can't even write your name down. Don't violate Wikipedia's policies.

Wikipedia is not a war, it is an encyclopedia. A reason why you probably don't leave your name is probably because you know your claims are too weak. If your defending your position wouldn't you state your name and defend your claims boldly, instead of slinking around in the hole erasing information and using inappropiate words?

Also your "I'm willing to listen" statement does not seem sincere. Good friend100 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of this article, and the policies and guidelines which I have highlighted that Fabshelly has violated, and I'm just defending them, by warning him repeatedly. Analyse and think about them thoroughly. For your information, you might want to take a look at Marty Meehan's wikipedia controversy. It's a long story if you want to go into the details. Cheers! Mr Tan 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to all editors

Blogs and fangroups really are not the right place to get correct, up-to-date information about anyone or anything. You don't have to go to Journalism school to learn the difference between speculation/wishful thinking and a solid, concrete source. Scanning teenage girls' blogs is not proper research. Please stop acting all insulted when I point this out.

Also, citing the incorrect version of this entry, cut and pasted onto a blog or website, as a source is just...I can't even think of the right words for it right now. Stunning chutzpah, but a circle of false information.

Thanks.

Who cares ?

You know, who cares ?

Did this guy discover a cure for cancer, or save starving millions ?

No.

He's just some 2-bit actor no-one has ever heard of.

GET A LIFE

And, I don't know who 'fabshelly2006' (trust me, you don't want to know who 'fabshelly2006' is) is - it's not me, and how do you know that it's Mr Tan. ? Accusing him falslely... Isn't that libel ?

I bet fabshelly2006 is actually you, trying to make Mr Tan look even worse.

And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ?

Don't make me laugh:

    Encyclopedia
    The full circle of arts and sciences; a comprehensive summary
    of knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge; esp., a work in
    which the various branches of science or art are discussed
    separately, and usually in alphabetical order; a cyclopedia.

A million monkeys typing randomly at a keyboard does not make a summary of knowledge, or branch of knowledge.

Apparently....

You do.

Response Fabshelly's edits

Removal of inconvinent facts is not acceptable, especially when Wikipedia:Cite your sources citations are provided. How can Fabshelly claim that he had not revealed the name of his girlfriend, when the name of the girlfriend is here? Such information ultimately originated from Bae. Also, the information is reconfirmed in official celebrity magazines supported by the government. These information is from the I-weekly, a Mediacorp publication funded by the Singapore government. How could you just say that it is a fan site or blog? Yes, these are not accepted as main citations in accordance to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but I have not violated them in reference to Bae's private life.

Also, the purpose of being an wikipedian is to be as neutral as possible and as objective as possible, not prescriptive. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for this quote. As said, unless you can prove that my edits are wrong, do not edit according to your feelings. Especially the wikipedia controversy section. Facts and facts. You cannot take Koh's article to gauge the standard of the article. Koh is only one man's opinion, and I have already highlighted it on the controversy section. Rewriting the paragraph to suit his interests violates Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. And you have violated these rules repeatedly, despite repeated warnings. I have also noticed that Bae acted in Ppilku as an extra. Yes, as a minor role. The filmography in Ppilku states so, and taht's enough. I don't see the point of you doing that. And your "As an extra" edit reflects Wikipedia:Weasel terms. Such biased edits are not welcomed on wikipedia.

If you persist on editing wikipedia without obeying the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I will send you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Arbitration ultimately. Please be objective and neutral and not be prescriptive and biased. Mr Tan 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Nobody needs to take anybody to RfC, but can I ask everybody to just leave the article alone for now. The way I see it, the dispute revolves around three main issues:

1. The inclusion of disputed facts about Joon's family and his marital status;
2. Whether he should be described as having been an extra in the film PpilKu; and
3. The wording of the "Wikipedia controversy" section.

I have suggestions for all of these points:

1. These will be included if and only if proper sources for them can be found that satisfy WP:RS, so not blogs.
2. I can't see any reason not to mention it, since it doesn't really harm readability, and provides the reader with more information.
3. I'm working on a more NPOV wording, which I'll post anon.

I hope this sounds reasonable. --David Mestel^(Talk) 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, check the references section. I certainly do not use blogs as references. I cited in accordance to Wikipedia:Reliable sources
2. Fabshelly's edit "as an extra" is clearly a reflection of Wikipedia:No peacock terms. What does he mean, as an extra? Yes, Bae played a small role in the film Ppilku. Extra means nothing to this article. It is an ambiguious term. Many other actors who played minor roles in films do not have their filmography "as an extra" like this? Isn't it? Take Arnold Schwarzenegger's Around the World in 80 Days (2004 film). He acted as a side-role, but that doesn't amount to him being mentioned "as an extra" in the article. Rather, I feel that the name of the person which Bae played as should be mentioned. Just take a look at the filmographies of any actors of any country. Or look at how imdb uses certain style of words of the actor's roles in specific movies.
3. I would suggest that you take a look at Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia. The controversy section is modelled on those of the wikipedia controversy section of Marty Meehan, which is removed by some users tentatively. Furthermore, Koh's article is only a one man's opinion of wikipedia. He is just voicing his displeasure, without thinking that his views on editing wikipedia certainly does violate several wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which I have hyperlinked on this talk page on past discussions. Of course, you are welcome to neutralise the content, but you must not forget to be as objective as possible. Check the history of this article from March, and see Fabshelly's deletion of certain inconvinent facts, inspired by Koh, I guess.
4. I hope you would take your time to think through the problem. The reason why I proposed for RfC is because Fabshelly has violated several internal policies and guidelines which I have highlighted. This is certainly not acceptable. Unless Fabshelly reasons out his edits properly in an objective manner (which he isn't), or realises that what he is doing violates wikipedia's policies, otherwise we have to take the appropriate steps. Thus we have to monitor Fabshelly's edits in order to stop him if he makes any edits violating policies and guidelines set by wikipedia. Cheers! Mr Tan 06:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. What about groups.msn.com? baeyongjoon.blogsome.com? Reference number five links to a page without content.
2. Ok, change that to "if someone can find a source saying that he was an extra".
3. The congressional staffer section is far less strongly worded than the section in this article. I'd ask you to reserve judgement until you see my text.
4. While it may ultimately be necessary for you to bring an RfC against Fabshelly if he is unreasonable, this should not be considered until all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted.

Is this acceptable to everyone? --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise text

Here is some text for an NPOV version of the "Wikipedia controversy" section:

In 2006, Koh Gyudhae of Hankooki, along with a segment of Bae's fans criticsed wikipedia's article on Bae, citing privacy reasons. Koh went further by voicing his view that "unnecessary" information should be removed. Following the publication of the newspaper, edits including the removal of some alleged inconvenient facts were made. Some editors felt that this was contrary to Wikipedia's internal guidelines and policies.

Does this seem acceptable? --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

David, I must say that you have been half-sleeping all this while. The text Fabshelly written is very NPOV in style.

I have also proven the guidelines Fabshelly violated and you are trying to compromise with him that "some editors", which is wrong of you to do that as you are trying to favour his expression of his opinion on Koh's article. His edits certainly lacked objectiveness, as compared to mine, which I have shown proper ctations. My controversy section is modelled on [11], which has been analysed by many editors. In fact, what you are doing is partially supporting Fabshelly's actions, which is violating some of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines are something that all should follow and not violate it. They are rules that are laid down to earth by all wikipedians, and all wikipedians who are familiar with these laws would agree to it and abide with.

Compromise can only be established if both sides do not violate any laws of wikipedia, or are near NPOV in some aspects. Protection of wikipedia's policies and guidelines comes first, along with factual accuracy in terms of objectiveness and not prescriptiveness in terms of one man's opinion. Wikipedia is against biased content, if you chek out at Wikipedia:NPOV, if you are not sure about what exactly how neutrality is being judged. If compromising an NPOV version against one which is very biased, it is wrong to do that as you are also trying to compromise these internal policies and guidelines which are laid down to earth. If someone opposes those guidelines, a vote should be held to see whether the policy should be maintained, or be made into a guideline if the opposition minority is quite large. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for more information.

It is a good idea that you have proposed to compromise. However, before doing so, I would suggest that you check both sides for neutrality by analysing Koh's article and all of the affected wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Compromise can only work if both sides do not violate policies and guidelines, and are near-NPOV in nature. I hope that this would be helpful to your judgement in compromising various versions of a same topic. Mr Tan 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're happy with Fabshelly's text? Fine. Assuming you actually meant "POV" when you said "NPOV". Have you got a reliable secondary source saying that it ran afoul of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? It is your POV that the edits were a violation of WP policies and guidelines, it is Fabshelly's POV that they were not. It is NPOV to say that some felt that they were, and, by implication, that some felt they weren't. I would prefer it if you were a little less rude and patronising, seeing as I'm basically doing this (agreeing to mediate) at your request. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool it, man. What I am saying is my compilation of his edits from June onwards, when he first made a overhauling change to the article. Apparently you did not look into the article's history as instructed. As a meditator, you have to listen and follow necessary instructions from both sides.

If I am unneutral, I would have just blindly condemned Fabshelly is very unneutral in his edits. How can you say that "actually meant "POV" when you said "NPOV". "? Prove it to me otherwise if you really mean it. A person making unsourced claims would be rejected. Like wise, if a politician accuses another of committing something wrong without ground-to-earth and proven facts, he could be accused of libel and slander. The same real-life rule applies here too.

My contribution of the controversy section was actually meant to neutralise the link added by Fabshelly on Koh's point, of which he was greatly inspired by Koh's suggestions. As I have said, my contribution is modelled on Marty Meehan's wikipedia controversy section. A large portion of wikipedians have accepted that, although not others.

Such a trival matter little news reporting would have done. Policies and guidelines are established through voting, and they can be used as sources when necessary like this case. This is totally an internal matter, and like as I say, if the best source isn't avaliable, then look for the second most reliable source. I have already given the best hard proof copy of fabshelly's violations. In RfC, matters are similarly solved like that. It is better than second-hand sources provided by news companies. That Marty Meehan article apparently stated "ran afoul internal guidelines" without providing any citations to which laws the congress people violated. I did provide primary sources, which is even more direct in nature.

Secondary sources, I believe, are supportive sources and are optional. Take the parliment of a country for example. If a person has committed a stealing crime, where does the lawyers and judges obtain sources to prosecute the accused? Surely they can't look for secondary sources such as news reports of past events very similar to the person they are prosecuting to. They would have to refer to the laws set by that country. Laws are for all people to adhere by strictly, just like wikipedia's policies and to a great extent the guidelines. Distorting the law for one case belittles the authority of the given law, and this means that nobody would ever want to follow it. In that case, the whole infrastructure of the country/organisation would collaspe as all people are taking the laws into their own hands.

If I did not provide proper backings with my statements, then you can say that I am not objective and very biased. The backings I sustained from policies and guidelines are very appropriate, for tehse are established by the wikipedian community, and then written down on hard paper. If you oppose or doubt the wikipedian laws, you are free to hold a vote to see if the laws should be changed. You cannot compromise the authority of wikipedia's policies and guidelines just like this. Your compromise would have been very neutral if Fabshelly's edit had not violated wikipedia's laws.

Anyway, do you want me to highlight the statements of which Fabshelly's edits violated if you can't find it or doubt so? If you have any doubts that my stance proves Fabshelly's edits violates wikipedia's laws, please clarify. If you think the section is too strong, by all means soften the stance to a one which you think is more or less moderate, but do not modify the original meaning of the content at the expense of compromising with Fabshelly's .

I would therefore suggest that you look at the earlier discussions on this talk page to see the quotes from the policies and guidelines pages I have highlighted. I would suggest that you look at them carefully and think about all I have said carefully, and particularly Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Mr Tan 09:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

When you said that Fabshelly's text was "very NPOV", I assumed you meant "POV". With respect to primary and secondary sources, read WP:OR. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thank you for pointing out my confusion between the POV and NPOV mistakes.

(Since two policies clash) All right. Let's get down to the basics. No more talking anymore about this time-dragging conflict.

You, as a neutral person, would you accept to negotiate with someone who uses such uncouth language against his opposition just because he hated or disliked? Please take a look at [12] and check the history for verification.[13] I think that some one who uses such uncouth langauge such as "pissing contest and have a small dick" does not have the mood and proper attitude to negotiate at all. I do not wish to negotiate with anyone without the basic proper manners, which his parents should have thought him as a child. People with such uncouth behaviour do not have the sufficient mentality to handle proper negotiations. As for you, as a meditator between me and Fabshelly, I think for now we can put the matter to a rest. There is nothing more to discuss with a person with such uncouth and childish behaviour. A person who is mature enough would control his feelings, and negotiate on with style, just like the diplomats in the Pyongyang six-way talks.

I believe that as civilised human beings, we, just like Americans who rejected negotiation with terrorists (see Osama bin Laden who offered a truce with them earlier on) or people with inferior behaviour who uses the wrong avenue to express their displeasure. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Last but not least I must thank you for the effort you put in to meditate. As for the two of us, there is nothing to negotiate with a person who lacks proper manners and mentality. Mr Tan 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would continue to negotiate, for as long as is possible. I would just make sure not to be cowed by the attacks. I will leave a message on Fabshelly's talk page, inviting him to participate in this mediation. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "pissing contest" remark wasn't from me, and yes, I would like to continue mediation, especially since Mr. Tan has so many other complaints against him. Also, if there was any "attacking", it was entirely on Mr. Tan's part, as the other complaints against him show a pattern of abusive behavior on his part. Fabshelly 08:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)fabshelly

Word order in name

It is my understanding that Asian names are generally given with the surname first; in this case, the name would be Yong-jun Bae. I'm basing the "jun" rather than "Joon" on information from IMDB, however, and we all know how correct that can be. I believe the word order is correct, though—should the article move to the new name or a redirect be created?—Chidom ^talk  20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)\

Hi Chidom. Bae is his family name, from his official website, byj.co.kr - and nowadays, (finally), the West is beginning to use the proper Asian manner of family name first: Bae Yong Joon. See his official page, and also US-based fan and management sites like broasia.com Fabshelly 08:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)fabshelly.

Why do you spell his last name Bae? why not Bay? actually shouldn't it be Pe? or Be? What's up with the A?

Mediation still active?

This mediation case is still listed as "open". Is further medation required here or can I close this case? --Ideogram 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to see this settled, especially in light of complaints about Mr. Tan that sound almost exactly like the problems I'm having here.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a woman. Fabshelly 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)fabshelly