Talk:Itaewon

Changes by User:Hardyandtiny

The above user visited the Itaewon page and changed some of the descriptions, essentially: "military personnel from Yongsan garrison and the UN base as well as civilian visitors from the wider world" to "foreigners" and "English-speaking cutie peeking out of a doorway" to "prostitute"

I reverted the initial change as I felt it took some of the life out of an article about a vibrant, diverse part of Seoul. I also left a note on the users talk page (along with a welcome message, this is a brand new user) but the change was remade almost instantly. I'd be interested to hear everyone - especially Hardyandtiny's - views on these changes, I personally think the original sounded better and is a great description of what goes on in Itaewon. The changes strike me as somewhat sanitary and that's not, imo, supposed to get in the way of good prose in WP articles. Deizio 01:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would actually tend to favor Hardyandtiny's changes -- at least the ones you mention--, per Wikipedia's preference for clear, succinct writing. "Cutie" is a particularly problematic word. -- Visviva 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm indeed. I've seen plenty of examples of overly wordy prose in WP, and this isn't in the top league by a long way. "Cutie" refers to a cute girl who is using her cuteness to entice you into something. If you'd ever walked up Hooker Hill you would know the term is more than suitable. If dry text is what people want then that's what they shall have, however the paragraph you've quoted from the style guide also says "Conciseness, however, does not justify removing information from an article."

In any case, Hardyandtiny seems set on writing his own version of Seoul with absolutely no interest in discussion or consensus building with other editors. Such behaviour is, imo, in many ways as bad as including blatant POV or vandalism. I'll be watching his future contributions with interest. Deizio 15:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I was about to comment on how grossly POV this article sounds (it sounds more like someone's travel blog than a bona fide encyclopedia entry to me), but it looks like there has already been some discussion about the situation. I tagged it, but if someone is already carefully monitoring the article, then the tag can be removed. --Merkurix 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Due to changes in US military policies and a growing number of foreigners in Seoul we felt it was no longer appropriate to emphasize military personnel as customers of the brothels and bars.

2. When considering the wikipedia audience we felt the description of prostitutes as "English speaking cuties" could cause confusion.

hardyandtiny

Who is "we"? In any case, you've missed the boat a little, those issues were addressed a while ago - we're talking 17 months since my post above. Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ - you never need to actually "write" your username. You should also use user talk pages to communicate with individual editors. As your comments pertain to the article generally I've refactored your edit. Deiz talk 11:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We = hardy and tiny. I thought I should respond. Actually those were tiny's changes. Thanks for the tip about signing, and I'll try to use the talk pages from now on. Oh, and what do you mean, you refactored tiny's edit?Hardyandtiny 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "your" edit - you should register separate accounts if you wish to interact with the community as two different editors. This is an article talk page, but the comment was addressed to one editor. I reformatted the comment in line with Wikipedia style guidelines and the purpose of the page. You can use the history function to examine separate revisions of the page if you want to see the differences between the versions. Deiz talk 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, we'll just post as hardyndtiny. There's no need to create separate accounts, we prefer to post as one viewpoint. You wanted to know what I meant by "we" - that's all. Okay, I'll try to not use "we" anymore. Maybe we should just delete this entire thing about "we" out of the page now, yeah? [[[User:Hardyandtiny|Hardyandtiny]] 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)]

Best to leave it as is, be honest about the fact that two individuals are editing with one account. Deleting / revising edits (different to "refactoring" which refers to formatting an edit for style reasons) to cover it up would only invite bigger concerns about the account. You should really create a userpage and mention it there as well. Deiz talk 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)