Talk:History of Hangul

Dispute

@Censorless

Ctrl+f "Hangul would not achieve significant government adoption until around 1894, during the Kabo Reform."

Also Ctrl+f "Royal and court women were significant early adopters and disseminators of Hangul."

You do not actually bother to read articles before you edit, and then you lash out at others for it.

I can't even revert you atm because of WP:3RR. If you refuse to self-revert, I may reach out to WP:3O and ask them to revert.

grapesurgeon (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I checked WP:3RR and neither of us are even close to violate the three-revert rule. Why are you bringing this up?

-----

Your quoted sentences are also not my sentences but pre-existing sentences. In your latest reversion, you deleted the following sentences:

The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites. Aside from people with little or no formal education and women, men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China.

This situation persisted until the Kabo Reform of 1894 when Hangul received official status as a script for government documents.

Can you explain why these sentences have to be deleted? These sentences do not contradict at all with your quoted pre-existing sentences. Again, be specific in your claim on what sentences are under dispute and why you dispute them. I won't engage with conduct accusations before going over content.

Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war, and we cannot reach consensus if you keep throwing the word 'dispute' without sharing what exactly you are disagreeing with. Censorless (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

3RR was relevant. I can't believe you are so incredibly combative that you'll even debate this.

They do overlap. It is impossible for me to be more specific. If you cannot see that then we'll have to get other people involved to judge if they are. I'm going to reach out to WP:3O. This has been ridiculous. Reading comprehension problems. grapesurgeon (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

So you are escalating this without explicitly stating what you are disputing, when I am open to discussion. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Why do you keep making reverts without explicitly sharing your reasoning, and demand me to comply? You have to at least express your opinions somewhere, either your edit summaries or this article talk page topic.

Otherwise, how can I know what you are complaining about? I am not a mind-reader, and nobody is.

-----

WP:3RR applies when "more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period" are performed.

Are you sure you are not the one being combative? The rule explicitly says that it applies when more than three reverts are performed within a 24-hour period.

------

Again, I do not want to argue over conducts, whether it is mine or yours.

All I want is for you to explicitly explain your reasoning behind your reverts. Then we can finally discuss where the dispute is happening and address it smoothly. I don't understand why you keep avoiding this request.

Just make your position clear on what you are disagreeing with. It's more simple and more effective to end this than endless conduct accusations. Censorless (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I just saw your post on WP:3O. "Disagreement about whether some content added to the article overlaps with existing content"?

You never mentioned this. All I was given so far is your judgments on my edit being 'duplicate' and 'out of context' without reasoning behind them and explanations on why you believe certain sentences should be deleted.

Why are you framing me to be disagreeing with something I was not even notified?

I was under the impression that you wanted the sentences to be deleted because they are either false or contradicting pre-existing sentences].

Plus, I was never given an explanation from you on why sentences discussing same informations should be deleted.

The sentenced you deleted were in the background section, preceding detailed explanations of Hangul's history. What's wrong about introducing sentences briefly explaining what is to be discussed in detail in later sections? Censorless (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

numerous times you've basically duplicated things or put them out of order

content is out of order

In my edit comments. Read. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Those are your conclusions, without any explanation attached to it.

Are you expecting me to just agree with your conclusions without learning your reasoning?

What right do you have to command me to comply?

Are you sure this is not WP:OWNBEHAVIOR?

2. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

3. An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

4. An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.

The last quote from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is directly relevant to your behavior here.

"Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior"

Why are you doing this? All I ask for is a clear statement of your position on what you want to dispute and why.

Don't make this harder than it is. It's actually a really simple problem if we collaborate and stay focused on the content. Censorless (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You are assuming the reversions were no reason, but that is not accurate, so WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is irrelevant. I don't own any of the articles we've had disputes on, I've let plenty of other people contribute to the articles. They generally are helpful; there's lots of flaws with these articles that need fixing still. But your contributions I've found not helpful, and your attitude way less helpful.

You were dissatisfied with the initial explanations of the reasons (you shouldn't have been; it was clear from the beginning that I was targeting repeated content, especially in the context of our numerous disputes where I've told you you are adding repeated content. See Talk:Hangul and your talk page) but now you understand them.

Also, discussions about conduct should go on my talk page. Weren't you the one talking about focusing on content, not conduct?

Also, how can I possibly be any clearer at this point? Those bits are repetitive with other bits. You weren't even aware that they were, because of course you didn't read around; you hardly ever have in all of these disputes. And yes, being repetitive is generally not a good idea on Wikipedia. I don't think it was worth it here. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

You are assuming the reversions were no reason, but that is not accurate

Be my guest and explain. I'm eager to hear your defense.

See Talk:Hangul and your talk page) but now you understand them.

We both agreed to consider the dispute on the Hangul page closed. Why bring this up again here?

Look, I just want to end this 'dispute' on this History of Hangul page as soon as possible.

Why keep sabotaging it by avoiding requests and derailing the discussion? Can't you just give a straight answer on the content? Why are you doing this?

being repetitive is generally not a good idea on Wikipedia

That's not enough. I need you to provide an explanation on why the edits you deleted/reverted are specifically detrimental. I don't need your lecture on 'what Wikipedia articles should be in general'. As the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR says, 'reverting simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental' is an ownership behavior. I do not need your verdict; I need your rationale.

I'm just asking you to be specific. Otherwsie, how can I even decide whether I agree with you or not? As of now, I'm just thrown into a vacuum where I'm just constantly demanded by you to obey and accept your verdict without explanations. What kind of dispute is it when one side is not given information on what the other side is disputing and just gets continuously demanded to obey?

If you are still confused, these are the types of arguments I need to hear from you:

-----

"The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites. Aside from people with little or no formal education and women, men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China."

ex) "This sentence's information is properly sourced, but my source slightly conflicts with this. Better figure out how to properly present information from two conflicting sources in one sentence to give a more complete picture. Current version of sentence is not good enough."

ex) "This sentence is wrong for this part and that part"

ex) "This sentence is doing this and that to the article, and we can avoid this by moving this sentence elsewhere (alternative location specified)"

This situation persisted until the Kabo Reform of 1894 when Hangul received official status as a script for government documents.

ex) "This sentence closes the paragraph, but I have more information I can pack into the paragraph. We need to potentially rewrite the paragraph, so we need to decide where to put this sentence in light of the new information."

ex) "This sentences presents as if the Kabo Reform changed the official status of Hangul instantly. It'd be better if we could add slightly more contextual information to this sentence."

ex) "This sentence can potentially misguide the readers, and we can address this by moving it elsewhere, or paraphrasing it. Here are my suggestions: example 1, example 2, ..." Censorless (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

10 paragraph essay that could have been 2. You keep doing this and wondering why I lost my patience with you

I explained myself adequately already. You understood it earlier, you continually demanding more from me is awful behavior. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Still avoiding the request to organize your opinion, despite me going as far as giving concrete examples.

Why are you doing this?

What are you even trying to achieve here?

Do you want to end this 'dispute' or not?

What are you even doing? Censorless (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you do not like '10 paragraph essay' from me, just give your 2-3 sentence long organized paragraph on your position in the dispute.

You can still be more concise regardless of what I do. It's basic courtesy and you keep being rude about it.

I already gave you my position. What I deleted is out of place and repetitive with other bits. You think it's worth being repetitive and out of place, I don't. What more is there to possibly say? We disagree.

If you keep hammering on this point, admins will get involved. I already did the right thing by requesting 3O, there's nothing more I can say to you. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

What I deleted is out of place and repetitive with other bits.

So no explanation on why those deleted sentences are detrimental, when one of those sentences is not even a pure duplicate:

The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites. Aside from people with little or no formal education and women, men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China.

At least do some work and cite some kind of policies and guidelines about prohibiting duplicate sentences. I tried my best to search for specific policies and guidelines, and could not find any rule like that. You loved citing policies and guidelines when throwing accusations on my conduct. Why not on the content? And this is your main argument in this 'dispute' you initiated: "duplicate = always bad = always to be deleted unconditionally".

------

You are making zero effort to progress this 'dispute'. Why is it so hard to stick to the content?

In a legitimate content dispute, the disputing party should share why he or she disputes, and the other party consider whether he or she agrees with the reasoning or not. If the parties do not agree, then they compare the rationales of each side, and figure out how to close the gap until they reach a consensus.

But you are not even giving me a chance to learn your position and decide whether I agree with you or not; All you are doing is to demand me to obey you.

And you are declaring once again on your own that you have nothing more to say, just like the last time. I'm not blind to this pattern repeating over and over.

You seem to believe that you have a solid case for this.

If refusing WP:NOTCONDUCT, and exercising WP:OWNBEHAVIOR give you that much confidence, then I'm also eager to hear the Third Opinion myself.

It seems I will have a better chance of learning any basis or substance of your position by listening to the Third Opinion, than by asking you over and over to share them in your own words. This is very frustrating. Censorless (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

10 paragraph essay. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Another conciseness complaint to shut down the opponent and avoid inconvenient questions.

If you stop being ambiguous in your wording and avoiding content questions, then I don't need to beat the bushes and my comments can be more concise than they ever are.

What are you trying to achieve here really? This has been going on for five days and we are getting nowhere, when all you need to do is to elaborate your position in defense of your revert.

Why are you making this more and more difficult to reach consensus, if any? Censorless (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Conciseness is an important thing on Wikipedia, now I will admit I have sometimes done what you are doing Censorless where I write too much and a lot of editors both experienced and new are guilty of it, but I think grapesurgeon is being reasonable asking for short replies (given just how short their own replies are). Frankly I think a one or two paragraph reply like your latest one would suffice.

The more concerning thing in my opinion is that you are accusing grapesurgeon of "demanding (they) obey you" which is a pretty serious accusation that falls under Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and feels like a personal attack. Now, editors are allowed on this site (if they have evidence) to critic other editors in good-faith but from what I read on this talk page and the others is that they haven't really given any indication of trying to control your behavior. Them calling out your errors in editing (such as not reading your own sources) isn't controlling behavior that is standard wikipedian conduct. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It is true that I need to work to adapt my writing style for Wikipedia. I started editing two weeks ago and I do admit that my writing style is still not adjusted to it.

The trouble I'm having is that Grapesurgeon is not giving me any explanation of his judgment that my edits should be reverted. The only information I received from him so far is that "duplicate sentences are bad in general on Wikipedia" and nothing specific to the deleted sentences. This in itself is a flawed claim, because one of the deleted sentences is a mixture of new information and allegedly duplicate information in the article.

-----

This is the one of the sentences that got deleted:

The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites. Aside from people with little or no formal education and women, men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China.

And this is the sentence Grapesurgeon explicitly gave me in the first comment that is alleged to be a pre-existing duplicate of the above sentence:

Royal and court women were significant early adopters and disseminators of Hangul.

--------

I need to know why and how Grapesurgeon judged these sentences as duplicates, and figure out if there is a way to close the gap in the judgments. Is it not the whole purpose of opening a talk-page topic and have a conversation? Yet, I could not get any explanation at all. This is why I felt that I was being demanded to obey. As I was effectively told to "just agree with me and do not ask for the reasoning, or no consensus for you."

I want to also correct something in your comment here as well: I read my source for the sentence above, and another sentence is a paraphrased version of a pre-existing sentence in another section that I used to close the paragraph. So I'm confused why you say:

Them calling out your errors in editing (such as not reading your own sources) isn't controlling behavior

This talk got ridiculous long without being productive. So I understand there is a chance to misread. Can you tell me where you read that I did not read my own sources? Censorless (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Censorless, I want to help both yall so please keep your replies short.

Grapesurgeon correctly pointed out that you did not read, you tried to insert something talking about the 1800s into the origins of Hangul (which is 1400s). When they said "Control F" on their reply, they were pointing out a lot of your edits added redundant information.

The third party user made a good point, I think both yall have some fault, i dont want to get into whose more at fault, grapesurgeon shouldn't have been saying "you write ten paragraphs" BUT you do write way too long so I totally see why they got so frustrated. I wrote you a two paragraph reply and you replied with like 2.5x my length (so this causes a snowball effect as now i am forced to write more to reply to you). A talk page is for conversation yes but many talk pages end with no consensus and also again accusing them of controlling your behavior (and your other comments) I would not condone or support the language you are using. I strongly encourage you to read TooManyFingers's nuanced opinion as I have similar feelings. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

you tried to insert something talking about the 1800s into the origins of Hangul (which is 1400s).

I never did that. Is this about this History of Hangul article? If so, the only time I tried to add anything mentioning 1800s is this sentence and it's not about the origin of Hangul:

This situation persisted until the Kabo Reform of 1894 when Hangul received official status as a script for government documents. Censorless (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the more concise reply, yea to clarify that was the History of Hangul article (I know you and grapesurgeon talked over three different talk pages so its a bit hard to track who said what and where). Usually articles are chronological so I think grapesurgeon had a valid criticism there.

Regardless, I appreciate the more concise reply, obviously there are times when users have to write a lot but also it can be exhausting for users/third party observors to read through a lot. I encourage both you and grapesurgeon to resolve this with civility, and also, there's nothing wrong with dropping the stick. Often, talk pages end with no consensus/resolution. Anyhow, TooManyFingers wrote far better/more eloquently than me so their suggestions should be hopefully what both users take to heart. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

yea to clarify that was the History of Hangul article

Is this about mentioning how the sociocultural status of Hangul stayed a certain way since its creation up until 1894? The sentences in question for this content dispute? The sentences I added to the 'Creation' subsection of the 'Background' lead section?

If so, it's not a claim about 'Hangul was created in 1894'; it's about how the sociocultural status of Hangul remained secondary since its creation in 15th century up until 1894. This information spans centuries, so I saw it fit to add it to the 'Background' lead section, as it would be misleading to add the information to any other section dedicated to a specific time period. Censorless (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate in the later section, because this essentially forces users to ping pong back and forth if we had to apply this onto historical topics (it is 500 years). Also a lot of that edit had redundant info as mentioned in the "Control F comment." A sizable amount of the information you added was already present in the article so it just makes readers re-read information.

Also I want to clarify I didn't even come here for the purpose of debate against you (though as you can see I am willing to discuss and defend my points) I came here trying to de-esclate the situation since it was heated. Grapesurgeon (and I assume TooManyFingers) would be the more appropriate people to talk to on these points.

I strongly encourage you to not do WP:Casting asperations (which I linked before) such as the comment about grapesurgeon: "It's still 'either agree with him without knowing the reasoning, or no consensus' for me.

Unless this discussion escalates to an ANI or something else I don't think I am of much more use here as I wanted to de-escalate so I will go on my way now. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

A sizable amount of the information you added was already present in the article

I'm still confused about this for the reason I discussed above.

But you explicitly expressed that you are here as a third party, so I won't pursue.

---------

I strongly encourage you to not do WP:Casting asperations (which I linked before) such as the comment about grapesurgeon: "It's still 'either agree with him without knowing the reasoning, or no consensus' for me.

This is not casting asperation on Grapesurgeon; this is the genuine deadlock situation for me now. I need some way out to close this dispute, and I'm not seeing it. If you have any advice or guidance, I'm desperate to learn. Censorless (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm fine to be on the losing side as long as I am given a solid explanation.

I expected some links to Wikipedia rules that explicitly and specifically prohibit the kinds of sentences I added, or some detailed explanation with quotes from the article on how my sentences are detrimental to the article.

And so far, I received neither.

I need help to find a way out of this deadlock myself. Censorless (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This will need to be ANI at some point. Censorless's battleground behavior over two sentences is extreme and objectively ridiculous. I woke up to 24 new comments in this thread. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I did not expect that it would take this long to hear some form of sentence-level explanation from you either. Censorless (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I explained why I'm not engaging with you at any detail anymore. You still apparently don't understand how human patience works grapesurgeon (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Censorless, it is casting asperations, even if that is not your intent, third party readers like myself are reading it as you saying that Grapesurgeon is trying to control you, etc. On the contrast side, I do think grapesurgeon should not have said the "ten paragraph" replies, but the thing is their criticism is based on solid fact (even if its not literally 10 paragraphs, your replies to TooManyFingers/me do illustrate this, I know you were trying to get better but your replies to TooManyFingers regressed back to massive blocks of text. It is ok to write a lot sometimes but this is like the third talk page where the same discussion between you and grapesurgeon is essentially happening).

I already mentioned it before but I don't think I am of much use here anymore. I have sent you some links and tried to help this talk discussion, but I already gave my advice (either engage with civility and with conciseness, or drop the issue). Please carefully re-read grapesurgeon's initial comments across your talk page, Hangul, here (where they pointed out issues like your redundancy in edits, chronological edits, etc) and especially please re-read TooManyFinger's comments. I will only return if this escalates to ANI, no further replies. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Roger that. Censorless (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Placeholder for the third-opinion "wait" message that was posted at 20:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking this. Note that this dispute is an offshoot of a dispute we had on Talk:Hangul. Our interactions began much more friendly and have gotten to this point. See also Censorless's talk page (and their teahouse post) for more. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is my first time going through all this process, so I'm not sure how the process typically goes.

But I want to make it clear that I just want this dispute to be over as soon as possible and go back to researching sources on Hangul potentially for future edits on relevant articles. So I'd prefer this content dispute to be exclusively on the content, not conducts, even if both Grapesurgeon and I ended up making many conduct complaints to each other as this got heated up. It'd be best if we just sort out the differences in our opinions and close this content dispute in mutually satisfactory condition.

Also, know that the first half of my user talk page's topic is about the dispute I and Grapesurgeon had in Talk:Hangul. The dispute was closed long ago, so if you need to follow my user talk page topic specifically in relation to this article's dispute, you should start here. Censorless (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether some content added to the article overlaps with existing content):

Initial "wait" message was posted at 20:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC) Hello Censorless, hello grapesurgeon. I hope I can help settle this, and I also hope similar ones will be less likely in the future. I'm trying to be fair to all, and also trying to say what I mean without covering it up. I hope my balance between those things turns out to be acceptable. This is the first time I've done a third opinion, so I'm slow and clumsy - I apologize for that. I hope you take very seriously the fact that what I say is not an official ruling, and is not binding on anyone. And, especially under the circumstances, I'm sorry for how long some of my comments are. I am intentionally omitting all mention of Wikipedia policy, and I respectfully request that policy never gets mentioned in this third-opinion discussion. I believe we need to focus on the real situation; claiming policy violations or claiming to have acted according to policy would just be a distraction. Censorless, it appears that you created your account five years ago, then made one edit (fixing a typo) two-and-a-half years ago, and then made 67 or more edits in the past two weeks, many of which are quite large. (If you've also made a large number of other Wikipedia edits in the past that I haven't mentioned, please tell about them.) If the account information is true, this means that even though you've had an account for a number of years, in practical terms you are a beginner Wikipedia editor suddenly making quite a number of large edits, the overwhelming majority of them being about the Korean language or topics that are tightly connected to it. grapesurgeon, you have had this account for two years, but had another account before, and therefore have edited considerably more and for a longer time. You also wrote on your user page that you concentrate on topics that involve Korea and Koreans, which is clearly true. It seems to me that there is more than one misunderstanding contributing to the situation, making it harder for each of you to see what might have gone wrong and tending to make things worse. Misunderstood issues include the sequence of ideas in an article, the (non-)repetition of ideas in an article, communication style in edit summaries and talk pages, and maybe others. A content dispute definitely exists here, and I'll get to it, but I regard the content as the easy part. Censorless, your talk page responses - the ones that grapesurgeon called "ten-paragraph essays" or something - yes, unfortunately they really are wrong and they really are that bad. You deserve respect, and people are never going to respect you (or your opinion) if you write like that. They'll ignore you, but it's worse - they'll also start to think you deserve to be ignored. You are abusing talk-page comments (and abusing talk-page users) by "venting" your emotions. Because there is pain inside you at what's happening, you are "making pain" on the page for everyone else to feel. Of course you don't intend it as an aggressive attack, but that's exactly what it turns out to be. I'm not guessing about this; I know what it is because I've done it myself many times and seen it many more times. I know it's true that every word you wrote is about a legitimate issue and that you never strayed from legitimate topics - you didn't call anyone bad names, you didn't use rude language, you didn't try to discuss irrelevant stuff, you didn't lie, no one can blame you for a single word - but your method of responding was completely focused on creating an emotional attack, and not at all focused on making better articles. You used good words for a bad purpose, maybe without knowing it. Unfortunately, (a) nobody understands your emotions (or anything else) when you write like this, and (b) writing of this kind never belongs on any talk page, not even a personal one. The only effective and acceptable way to express emotion on a talk page is to literally type the name of the emotion, for example "I'm frustrated by [name of the thing]" - and to immediately switch your focus back to the real topic. For article talk pages, the real topic is always a thing in the article, not a person or their actions; sometimes a person's actions do need to be mentioned and dealt with on an article talk page, but not taking much space or time to do it. I believe that you were extremely frustrated with the way this was all going - you were right to be frustrated! - and that your high word-count has been your way of signalling your frustration. If you hadn't been so frustrated, you could have said everything you needed to say with a tiny fraction of that word-count - but even when you are frustrated, your responses must stay short and stick to the article facts. (The longer response always makes you look very confused and wrong, even if you're right - and people always know that it's an aggressive attack on them, even if you didn't intend to make one.) If you become so frustrated (or other emotion) that all you can do is write write write, that means you have become an attacker, and it's necessary for you to walk away instead. Your talk page responses need to be much MUCH shorter, all the time, everywhere, with everyone. I would guess your responses need to get about 85% cut out - so that every 100 words becomes 15. (That is not an exaggeration.) Because of what I just wrote, I'm making a specific request: Censorless, in this discussion please keep your responses very very short. I don't have a word limit in mind; please just say what you mean in the simplest possible way, and then suddenly stop. grapesurgeon, I am currently convinced that Censorless may have been frustrated for good reasons, and if so I think that was partly your fault, maybe even mostly your fault (but see my Note just below). When a person is "just not getting it", there can be different reasons for that, and one very common reason is that an explanation didn't even make sense to them. Part of assuming good faith is to assume "If they didn't understand me, I probably said it wrong" - and to then explain differently, in multiple different ways, before you even start wondering if something is wrong with another person. I found some of your explanations unfair because (a) the "actual explaining bits" were very short and poorly worded, and (b) when Censorless (who it appears has only been seriously editing for two weeks) obviously didn't understand, you basically just repeated the same short (and frankly a bit lazy) explanations over and over. For myself, I immediately understood your explanations, so they weren't that bad, but I'm just one person (and I'm a bit proud of my ability to "get" bad explanations, and I have more than 2 weeks' wiki editing experience). When people don't get it, it's your responsibility to change your strategy so that they DO get it. If you already gave the best explanation you could, that doesn't matter - give a different one anyway. Maybe you were in a rush; if that's true, then the solution is to stop rushing. On Wikipedia it's almost always better to do nothing than to rush. (Note: it's possible that you did explain these things several different ways in other earlier discussions that I didn't find, and maybe I only saw the part that came after you got tired of trying because many different explanations failed already. If so, I apologize, and I would want to retract a lot of this.) OK, now content: Especially in an article named "History of ...", the whole content of the article should be kept in chronological order all the time, including when editing to add more material. If I'm adding ideas, I must notice exactly how my ideas fit in with the ideas that are already there, and I must be ready to break my edit into pieces to be put in different places, or whatever else I need to change about my edit to accommodate the existing material - and maybe to give up doing that edit until I figure out how it fits, or if it even fits at all. I have to study what's already been written, and do what's good for the whole article, not just edit because I know a thing. grapesurgeon is right about this. In any article, the lead section (the beginning part before the first section heading) is a summary of important points in the article. It must have only the main points, and those points often also appear in some other part of the article, usually in a fuller form with more details and explanation. But outside the lead section, the same idea generally should not appear twice in an article, and if duplicated ideas are found, the newly-added one should almost always just be cut out. It doesn't matter if the words expressing the ideas are not the same; it's the ideas themselves that count. grapesurgeon is right about this. Censorless, I can't tell if the claim that you "didn't read" was true or not, but that is how some of your edits looked. You added something that is true, but you didn't check to see if someone else already put that in, or you didn't try to put the events in the right order. We're not just here to throw good stuff "somewhere" in articles, we're here to make articles that make sense and are written well. If you skipped checking for these things because you didn't want to waste time, I hope you now see that in fact it's a huge waste of time to not check for them, and can cause you a lot of trouble too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. On the conduct thing on my end, you understood it immediately and imo most would. I made it even clearer in a followup. That was more than sufficient, but Censorless insists that I've never explained myself even now. That's wrong.

Furthermore, this comes in the context of me being extremely frustrated with Censorless's behavior. I'm trying to intentionally minimize the amount of time I spend interacting with them because they insist on being a massive time drain over like a 2 sentence dispute. On the Hangul article our massive dispute resulted in the addition of like 20 words.

So yes, I was brusque with them intentionally. Is that wrong? No. Basically everyone else who's looked at this dispute has said "yeah I see why Grapesurgeon has lost their patience" grapesurgeon (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If you had already earlier done the thing I described, then I agree with you and I would likely have handled it less well than you did. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

As I am being requested of shorter and shorter reply, I will address the key points only.

it appears that you created your account five years ago, then made one edit (fixing a typo) two-and-a-half years ago, and then made 67 or more edits in the past two weeks, many of which are quite large.

This is true. I have been a lurker on Wikipedia mostly, and only started editing two weeks ago when I discovered informational gap on Hangul article.

In any article, the lead section (the beginning part before the first section heading) is a summary of important points in the article

The section I tried to add the sentences in question is the lead section of this article: "Background". The sentences I added are: a new sentence from a new source I found, and a paraphrased version of another sentence from another section named "Enlightment period and Korean Empire". This is the diff. I added these sentences here, because they briefly describe the sociocultural status of Hangul since its creation in 15th century all the way up to 1894, which spans centuries, and is not about any specific century in between. This is why I saw it fit to put those sentences there, because placing them in any other section dedicated to a specific period would be misleading.

----------

Writing style problem is admittedly a big part that I need to address. Wikipedia is the first place that I know to explicitly expect me to write shorter. So it is a work to do on my part.

----------

Conduct issue aside, then how do we proceed this dispute from hereon? This might be because I am just a beginner and do not know some kind of English Wikipedia implicit norm, but I still have not learned Grapesurgeon's reasoning specific to the reverted sentences. It's still 'either agree with him without knowing the reasoning, or no consensus' for me. Censorless (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you think that some of his reverts were for different reasons, that were not the ones I mentioned? I thought they were for the reasons I said, but I didn't check all of them. Please try for a one-sentence or two-sentence answer; there's no need for an itemized list. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you think that some of his reverts were for different reasons?

Yes, mainly because the reasons I received so far, 'duplicate' and 'out-of-order', do not match with the sentences in question. 'Duplicate' claim does not match with a sentence he claims to be a duplicate of my sentence (information in those sentences are substantially different), and 'out-of-order' claim does not match, as my edits were not about specific periods but the multiple centuries since the creation of Hangul to 1894. Censorless (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

grapesurgeon, do you agree that the information was substantially different and the time period was very broad? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I think under the circumstances I'm going to request that you please just accept the way grapesurgeon has put things in his latest edits to the article, without trying to negotiate anything or get anything changed from what he did. My reason is that it's more important for this dispute to be over, than to quibble over those things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

We did not hear Grapesurgeon's reply yet. Are you suggesting to just abort this dispute?

I was planning to do more researches on Hangul and make edits to relevant articles in the future. Without learning Grapesurgeon's latest revert, how can I be sure that he's not going to delete my future edits for random reasons? I don't mind being the losing side for this dispute, as long as I get a reasonable explanation. Any explanation I can understand will tell me what I need to be cautious of in my future edits. Censorless (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo.

\*\*Without learning the reasoning behind Grapesurgeon's latest revert\*\* Censorless (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

how can I be sure that he's not going to delete my future edits for random reasons?

Ok I've had about enough of this. I'm going to file at ANI. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

You already dropped your 'duplicate' claim after I show how your 'duplicate' claim does not hold. And now you are reporting me for having wanted to hear your sentence-specific explanations in the first place.

I don't understand why you are this defensive about explaining your viewpoint. I do not know if I have a chance to speak to defend myself against the report, but if I do, then I have my own case to present as well. Censorless (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

No. I didn't drop that claim. The claim has always held: those sentences are like 99% duplicates of others.

The aspersions you're casting about me having literally 0 basis for my edits are outright lies. I've never accused you of similar. Grossly inappropriate behavior. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

??????? I don't understand. You replied "then modify the existing sentences to add the nuances", meaning 'the nuances' were indeed not duplicates of existing sentences.

And you are also saying on the other hand that "the (duplicate) claim has always held: those sentences are like 99% duplicates of others."

???? How do those sentences make sense together? Censorless (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

> the nuances

> sentences are like 99% duplicates

1% = nuances grapesurgeon (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The reverted sentence in question:

The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites. Aside from people with little or no formal education and women, men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China.

The "nuances" you admitted not to be a duplicate of existing sentences is depiction of the relationship between men's educational level and attitude towards Hangul & China, and that is the entire point of the reverted sentence above, except the brief mentioning of 'women'.

How does it make sense that '1%' nuance is nearly 100% of the entire sentence's message, minus a single word? Censorless (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites.

This is covered by the other sentences I gave in its entirety.

Aside from people with little or no formal education women detail communicated elsewhere, people with little or no formal education communicated elsewhere not.

men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China covered elsewhere

So "little or no formal education" is the missing detail. Add that in to an existing sentence. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't just throw your judgments. Attach your evidences together.

You presented the sentence "Royal and court women were significant early adopters and disseminators of Hangul." as the duplicate for the reverted sentence in the first comment, and in the later comment as well along with new sentences. And now you are bringing other unnamed sentences to defend your 'duplicate' claim.

I am not a mind-reader. How am I supposed to know what sentences you are talking about?

---------

One counterargument I can present is that another sentence you quoted as the reason for the revert (They argued a native Korean script was too far a departure from Chinese civilization, which they insisted Korea should be deferent to in a Confucian manner.) does overlap with the sentence "men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China", but that's clear only to those who already know what 'Sadae' is. There is no explicit description of sense of 'shame' associated with Hangul, only the sense of 'duty' towards China. And that's not clear to those unfamiliar with what Sadae is. Censorless (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not repeating entire portions of my previous comments. You are capable of scrolling to my previous comment, I'm not bloating this thread any more than it needs to be. No matter what I provide, you'll accuse me of having provided no arguments regardless; you've been doing that since the beginning.

To your counterargument, that is such an incredibly minor nuance that is already also communicated in other sentences about how the elite looked down on Hangul. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... this is repeating again and again. When I ask a question, you do not provide a direct answer and just give me 'you should already know this', 'figure it out on your own', 'that is a minor thing you should agree to dismiss'. At least give me your criterion on what qualifies as 'a minor nuance'.

I am not a mind-reader. I don't know what holds you back from being specific. Censorless (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the first place that I know to explicitly expect me to write shorter. So it is a work to do on my part.

It may be true that it's work, but it's needed immediately. Making your talk messages just "shorter", or just soon, is honestly not going to succeed. This kind of thing might be a bit of a shock, and it may take you a long time to write each message at first, but you need "all messages very very short, starting right now today" - not just "making an effort to be shorter pretty soon". I'm sorry to say that, but it's important so that you don't get blamed for starting fights. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No problem. It's true that this 'short writing' rule on Wikipedia is a surprise to me, but you are giving me reasons I can digest. I see no reason to protest. Censorless (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the way we proceed from here on is as follows:

1. You make all your messages very extremely short, on all Wikipedia talk pages of every kind including your personal one, beginning right now and lasting permanently.

2. You accept the fact that grapesurgeon's judgement was right in this case.

3. You learn why he was actually right, and stop trying to say he was wrong.

4. In the future in other articles you edit, you try to do things the way grapesurgeon taught you to do, because it gives good results.

I apologize for the one-sided list, but seriously grapesurgeon did not really do anything wrong in this case. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If I actually get an explanation for numbers 2 and 3, I have no problem accepting those terms. The problem is that I did not get any.

Number 4 is exactly the reason why I'm eager and desperate to learn his reasoning, so that I know what I need to be cautious of in future edits. Censorless (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is the explanation for numbers 2 and 3: Good Wikipedia articles are written in a style that might be different from anyone's personal style. Your personal style (as you were using last week) seems quite extreme in the way you were adding many extra sentences that repeated the same information and did not quickly "get to the point". Wikipedia style "gets to the point" immediately, and almost never uses an extra sentence or even an extra word. Not everyone here writes in exactly the same style, but your style was so far from Wikipedia style that it just couldn't fit. So, it's about using a new style.

(Was "get to the point" already a familiar expression to you?)

I hope this helps. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It's true that my initial edits were not polished in style as you describe. This is why my edits on the History of Hangul article got far shorter and why I was being more selective in what to add. What I'm confused is that 'style' problem seems to be heavy enough to warrant dispute and potentially ban here on Wikipedia, but I see no organized Wikipedia rule saying 'this is the style you should use, and this is not the style you should use'. User essays I read so far were all very abstract.

This is also why I am asking for guidances concrete and specific to sentences concerned; I am a beginner, so I need to learn quickly to be a reliable contributor in Wikipedia community. I have no intention to protest your comment. I'm just trying to do my best to get the 'style norm' that all the other editors seem to be familiar with. Censorless (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I misread your sentence.

In any article, the lead section (the beginning part before the first section heading) is a summary of important points in the article

Did you mean by the lead section the unnamed (Top) section before the 'Background' section? Were you suggesting me to move my sentences there? In that case, I have no problem with it, although I will need to paraphrase the sentences in question and I'm not sure if Grapesurgeon will agree with it. Censorless (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No, that is only for the few biggest main points of the article. If something is not a biggest main point of the whole article, then it should be once only. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh. So I did not misread then. The (Top) section had a relevant sentence to my edits, so I thought you wanted me to reinforce the pre-existing sentence with my edits:

While Hangul saw gradual adoption among both the elite and commoners, it was looked down upon by the elite for centuries. It was only widely adopted in the late 19th century. Censorless (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No, the reinforcement is not better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

On whether what Censorless wants to repeat is worth it: this is what I deleted:

Existing sentences in article:

• Royal and court women were significant early adopters and disseminators of Hangul.
• Critics of the script emerged soon after its introduction. They argued a native Korean script was too far a departure from Chinese civilization
• As such, although people generally knew how to write Hangul, it was excluded from the realm of official communication that was still dominated by Classical Chinese. (Censorless even added this!!! Imo it's still repetitive with other sentences in the article (including some info overlap with info I'm presenting even in this message), but I left it as a compromise to get them to stop yelling, but even then they're still yelling)
• Hangul would not achieve significant government adoption until around 1894, during the Kabo Reform.

So what part of what Censorless added was missing from the article? If anything, it's like a 99% overlap. If this is news to Censorless, why did they spend like a dozen hours arguing about this instead of doing a ctrl+f and flipping around the article for like 2 minutes like I did? If there's even a 5% risk of them doing this again to someone else, WP:ANI is worth it imo to make sure they either stop now or are asked to leave Wikipedia. This was ridiculous. Censorless is even doing this to other people in this thread, and they even did similar on WP:TEAHOUSE. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The sentences deleted:

1. The creation of Hangul, therefore, did not automatically lead to its widespread adoption, especially by the elites. Aside from people with little or no formal education and women, men with substantial education considered communication in Hangul an act of disgrace for themselves and disrespect to China. (A completely new sentence I found from a new source)

2. This situation persisted until the Kabo Reform of 1894 when Hangul received official status as a script for government documents. (A paraphrased version of an existing sentence to close the paragraph)

The sentences I was given explicitly to be duplicates of sentences above:

1. Royal and court women were significant early adopters and disseminators of Hangul. (The only overlap between this sentence and the deleted sentetnce #1 is that they mention the word 'women'; this sentence mentions nothing about the relationship between men's educational level and their attitude towards Hangul & China.)

2. Hangul would not achieve significant government adoption until around 1894, during the Kabo Reform. (The original sentence I paraphrased into the reverted sentence #2)

The new sentences mentioned as reasons for the revert in the comment above:

1. Critics of the script emerged soon after its introduction. They argued a native Korean script was too far a departure from Chinese civilization (Yes, this sentence existed in the article before my edits; still no depiction of the relationship between men's educational level and attitude towards Hangul & China.)

2. As such, although people generally knew how to write Hangul, it was excluded from the realm of official communication that was still dominated by Classical Chinese. (True. I wrote this, in the same paragraph as the reverted sentences; still no depiction of the relationship between men's educational level and attitude towards Hangul & China.) Censorless (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Then modify the existing sentences to add those nuances. Don't add new ones. These are extremely minute changes you want to make. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• So you are dropping the 'duplicate' claim. See how it took an exchange of no more than two comments to address the differences in our opinions? This is why I kept asking for your sentence-specific explanations from the very beginning of this dispute.
• 'Out-of-order' claim is not clear-cut as the 'duplicate' claim; I just want to know why you considered description of Hangul's status spanning centuries as 'out-of-order'. The Kabo Reform sentence is clearly a duplicate though, because I borrowed and paraphrased another sentence.

Censorless (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

No. Addressed here.

FYI to others, I'm going to drop pursuing this and will instead file at ANI in near future. I will not reply any more in this thread until the ANI case begins. The continued stonewalling and aspersions are too much. They've even been doing it to every other editor that's engaged with them. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Stonewalling? You dropped no more than two sentences in your first comment as duplicates, and refused to elaborate further on your position until about 50 comments and a third-opinion editor involvement.

How is me asking you to elaborate your position a 'stonewalling', when you refuse to elaborate your position in the dispute you initiated?

You already decided to escalate this further when we could just talk this out in less than 5 comments without a third opinion. So I guess it's my time to learn how this so-called ANI procedure works. I learned sourcing and Wikitext from you, but never imagined asking for evidences and explanations would lead to learning ANI procedure. Truly, I'm learning a lot, even more than I expected. Censorless (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

"Just asking you to elaborate" is in fact a common major tactic in stonewalling, trolling, and personal attacks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

?!?!?! Wait, then how do people on Wikipedia make progresses in a content dispute, if request for elaboration is associated with stonewalling, trolling, and personal attacks? Censorless (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this "request for elaboration in itself can be an offense" thing explicitly written somewhere as a part of Wikipedia rules or another implicit norm I have to learn by trial and error?

Can I have to a link to the Wikipedia rule, if there is an explicit page about this? I'm very curious to read the page. Censorless (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)