User talk:Reuben/Archive/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome from Neutrality[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Reuben and Cerise[edit]

If you're not already familiar with it, I just wanted to say your name reminds me of a cool song by Jerry Garcia called "Reuben and Cerise." See lyrics.

When Reuben played on his painted mandolin,
The breeze would stop and listen in
Before going its way again.

I only know a few Grateful Dead songs, so this one by Jerry Garcia is new to me. Thanks for pointing it out! Reuben 00:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chung-Yao Chao[edit]

About the article Chung-Yao Chao, I see your talk on Talk:Chung-Yao Chao. So I move the former talk to that page.

Notes for myself - finding relevant citations. Reuben 07:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Anderson, Carl D. "The Positive Electron," Phys. Rev. 43, 491–494 (1933) [1]
  • Chao, C. Y. "Scattering of Hard gamma-Rays," Phys. Rev. 36, 1519–1522 (1930) [2]

Maths (Thanks)[edit]

Thanks for your help on the maths on Dokdo. Particularly your link was very helpful (height of observatory). Have a good day! Kokiri 21:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Math/physics biographies on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, Reuben, thanks for your kudos re biographies. Would you possibly be interested in helping me to pursue some kind of oral history project interviewing some of the great figures of the "Golden Age of General Relativity" (approx 1960-1975)?

At the other end of the spectrum, I came across three biographies of apparently very obscure mathematicians listed in Category:Algebraic graph theory, and nominated them for deletion on those grounds. I'd appreciate some feedback from math/physics people--- surely this issue has come up before, but I can't find any place to put up a notice to the math types here asking them to look those articles over. Any suggestions? ---CH (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear leader[edit]

I've often seen phrases like "위대한 ë ¹ë„ìž ê¹€ì •ì¼ë™ì§€ê»˜ì„œëŠ” …" or the shorter "ê¹€ì •ì¼ë ¹ë„ìžâ€¦" and had wondered why the Western media call him "dear leader". I have now seen your "ì¹œì• í•œ 지도자" and it all makes sense. Do you know whether "(위대한) ë ¹ë„ìž" has replaced "ì¹œì• í•œ 지도자" as the standard way to refer to KJI at some particular time, or whether both are currently in use? And is there a common translation for "위대한 ë ¹ë„ìž"? I guess it would be "great leader", but that seems to be reserved for "위대한 ìˆ˜ë ¹" KIS. – Wikipeditor 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipeditor, I think you know more about this than I do. Most of my information is from Western sources in English that don't give the original Korean phrases, so there's some guesswork in matching up what I've read in English with DPRK material on the web. Your inferences sound correct to me - that 위대한 ë ¹ë„ìž has been added as a title of Kim Jong-il, also translated "great leader." I think this happened after Kim Il-sung's death. A google search turned up plenty of references to ì¹œì• í•˜ëŠ” 지도자, so I think it's still used. Also, I saw a photo of a building with a slogan mentioning 당중심, which was apparently a code name for Kim Jong-il in the 1970's. Therefore, it seems likely that these honorifics just accumulate instead of replacing each other. --Reuben 18:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rueben you claim that the DPRK media constantly refers to Kim jong Il as "dear leader" in its international english-language material. If you look through the KCNA english language website you'll see that virtually all of the references to Kim Jong Il as "the dear leader" are in quotation marks refering to how people were refering to him rather than refering to him that way directly; further the phrase "the dear leader" is always lower case which hardly implies its an official title as much an a way of praising him. It is also not standardized, since he is alternatively refered to as "the great leader", "the sagacious leader" etc. In any case, by an overwhelming margin Kim Jong Il is refered to simply as "comrade," in KCNA material. You have also not given any official government sources that give Kim Jong Il such a title. In the West it is widely believed that Kim Jong Il is actually legally titled "Dear Leader" and this is clearly not the case and presenting it as such is a way of trying to discredit him and make him seem silly, something that is not appropriate in an article trying to maintain a neutral point of view. Its obvious that Kim Jong Il has what Khrushchev would call a 'cult of personality', but its not obvious that this is a legally enforced cult rather than something some of his overzealous supporters are responsible for.NoJoyInMudville 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Since it wasn't clear, i acknowlege that some people in north Korea refer to kim jong il as 'the dear leader', and that some media sources have reported on these references positively, but i don't acknowlege that "Dear Leader" is a meaningful official title or that it is used in a standardized way the way some Western sources allege or imply and you've not offered anything to demonstrate otherwise. I think my most recent edit is more accurate and neutral than either my origional version or your more recent edit. In any case you've not offered any justification for your other edits which clearly presented the western view as factual without any sources. NoJoyInMudville 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Again this should really be on the North Korean talk page, but i think my current version is acceptable, if you dispute this you should discuss it on the talk page. The fact that some people in north Korea have refered to Kim Jong Il him as "dear leader", does not mean that this is his official title, and from DPRK news it seems clear that while he is sometimes refered to that way, it is hardly frequent enough to constitute a official title or courtesy title. Some americans sometimes refer to Geoge Bush in a rather silly way as the "Commander in Chief" in a non-military, governmental context (as in, Commander in Chief of America), this however does not mean that its somehow an official title or that he automatically has dictatorial powers just because some americans use it. NoJoyInMudville 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afshar experiment[edit]

Dear Reuben, Thanks for voting to keep the page. You say that "the results are exactly what anyone would have predicted." While your statement is true, it ignores the fact that (1) No-one had previously suggested such an experiment until my work, (although it is in full compliance with the quantum-mechanical formalism.) (2) These results suggest persistence of interference in the same experimental setup where the which-way information is also available (a violation of Complementarity). And as a logical consequence of (1) and (2), that (3) Complementarity and quantum formalism do not always overlap, and thus can be violated. All of the above are quite "important". Regards. Prof. Afshar 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reuben, I have never, ever claimed that my experiment violates quantum mechanics! If the article reflects such an assertion, it must be immediately corrected. What I have said (which is clearly delineated in my paper) is that Complementarity fails in my experiment. Complementarity IS NOT equivalent to quantum mechanics! I'm glad to hear that you are competent in QM. Perhaps you might wish to honor me with your detailed critique of my work? BTW/ my experiment does not need to be promoted, it has triggered an earnest debate in the academic community that ensures its thorough review and critique. If it survives the process (which it seems to have achieved thus far) it must be given its due merit. Looking forward to reading your critique. --Regards. Prof. Afshar 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

What do you mean by "please stop haunting the article about your own claims"? Are you asking me to stop defending myself against misrepresentaions of my work?!!! Below is my reply to your comment in the vote page:
  • I have no problem with the article size reduction, but have every problem with not being able to at least clarify what I have done, or why. It would be charlatanism to ascribe to me what I have not claimed, without a recourse to correct the allegation. After all, if the experiment carries my name, I should be able to explain what it is, or correct mistakes others make in describing its content and my claims. I will avoid directly editing the page given I can communicate my corrections and updates to a responsible, and unbiased editor who would then objectively update the article. I do not see how it could be done otherwise. BTW there is a Crossed beam version of the experiment that is much easier to understand without the need to go into Fourier optics. Anybody who wishes to add that version please contact me in my user talk page. -- Prof. Afshar 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be kind enough to act as the unbiased editor mentioned above? That may require you to be a bit more patient with me as I explain my point of view, but I guarantee you will enjoy it!!! I may be forceful at times, but as you will find out, I am also as objective as they come! So much so, that in fact I'm itching to be proved wrong :)-- Prof. Afshar 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you'd like to decline. Do you know anybody who may fit the bill?-- Prof. Afshar 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new Portal:Korea[edit]

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDATE[edit]

WP:MOSDATE had 'Avoid overlinking dates' section until 7 May 2006. The section contained this: "This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." I didn't know it was changed and based on that reason I unlinked them. In my opinion, linking every dates is not much useful and I would have unlinked them per WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context anyway. Thank you for let me know the change of WP:MOSDATE. --Kusunose 08:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korea[edit]

In order to maintain the neutrality of this article, you have to delete the part where an opinion is opposed to each other. Because, there are another articles to argue it. If you write the opinion of South Korea, we also have to write the opinion of Japan. However, then, this article becomes diffuse. You should understand that this article is not an article of Japanese Annexation of Korea. There are another articles to write about Annexation of Japan-Korea.

Did you read the discussion?Objectman 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Words[edit]

Thank you for your kind words. I have no problem with my edits being reverted when it's done with the right attitude--to make the articles the best they can be. Working on controversial topics is naturally difficult, I think, and it is always nice to meet an editor who particularly cares about making them into great articles that explain the controversy in question without catering to it. Thank you for putting forth the effort. LactoseTI 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

systematic analysis of 2ch.net[edit]

Actually that text was archived one. Maybe it was deleted in the current version. Not only that part, but the whole context was full of analysing Korea realted articles in english WP and how to attack them. Anything favorable to Korea means manipulation to them. Just before I got an dubios message from Hnyun that my edit maybe copyright violation so I had to delete it, but I'll check that. It's just amazing how systematic users in 2ch.net study the contents here. Ginnre 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get fully what you meant with non-obvious threading, but the whole text in that thread was entirely devoted to analyse edits of Korea related WP articles, especially Imjin War, Dokdo, Yayoi, etc. In the beginning somebody put an objective of the thread (We need to take steps against Korean manipulation of eglish WP) and introduced what is english WP and basic english words regarding Japan/Korea and then the rest is active Q&A and discussion of the contents. You can have a feeling in my talk page as I put more parts of the text from the thread. It was 12th series of the campagne and each series has 1000 replies and it's ongoing. Ginnre 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake of deleting the whole comments section; I don't know how that slipped through (shows what happens when I edit things when on the phone). —LactoseTIT 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The North Korea article[edit]

Reuben, if you have a dispute you should take it to the DPRK talk page. There are already topics on the "dictatorship" issue and the western point of view issue. You should not just continue to state your opinion as fact, to state opinion hostile to the DPRK as fact, to delete sourced information about the DPRK. The North Korea article like all articles needs to maintain a neutral point of view and disputes should be addressed in the talk page.


Reuben the only issue on the DPRK talk page that you're addressing is the "dear leader" usage. If you want it i would accept that but you cannot continue to maliciously revert the other sections, removing sourced content, and introducing bais into the introduction. You need to respond on the talk page to the issue of 'dictatorship' and western point of view. NoJoyInMudville 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Hook[edit]

Thanks for your comments Reuben. Precise lat/long I'm unable to help with although I have some photocopies of battle maps archived in 1DWR Regimental War Diaries archived at the Public Record Office, London. I'll look through my files. Some contain grid references that allow reference to larger scale maps. My understanding is that the Hook feature is now in the DMZ. The reason the Hook map was produced was for a family history. It was re-used for Wiki. A cousin served with D Company, 1st Battalion Duke of Wellington's Regiment on the Hook on the night of the battle. He was WIA and evaced to Japan then home on the troopship Empire Windrush, being shipwrecked en route. Brian.Burnell 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to ID the position, the river shown on the right of the map is the Samichon, and is a tributary of the Imjin River, running northwards. Descriptions Point 121, Point 146, etc is military-speak to ID peaks by their height above sea level in metres. Superimposed on a large scale map the heights should help ID the exact location. I have a photcopy of the official dispatches with a detailed account of the battle. If they would be useful I could photgraph them and transmit as an email attachment. Brian.Burnell 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korea[edit]

I didn't realize the version I reverted to had equally problematic issues; basically the reason I reverted it was that I had recognized the IP of the user making the changes as a POV pusher and just looked at the diff. I was hoping someone else would catch it if there had been more serious things at play (which seems to be the case)--sorry, I was too much in a rush this morning to check myself. Did you get a chance to set it straight? —LactoseTIT 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and Judaism[edit]

If you'd like to weigh in on the proposed split, I would welcome your view. Kaisershatner 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems POV in many ways[edit]

This version is the only one allowed to stand in the Japan Kofun period and Kofun section, but if you actually read the references this is not exactly accurate. I'm so tired of the lop-sided POV. If you read the actual reference some of the people misinterperted it and if you look at additional references you can see counter arguements, but that keeps getting deleted:

This reference which is used in the Kofun sit definately states that Koreans think Gaya influenced Japan in the Keyhole tombs. Someone keeps deleteing that sentence if I put it in, even though the reference they provided is the source of that statement.

Current version of kofun:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan.

My modifications which keep getting reverted for POV, I think it is more neutral or at least summarizes the actual reference better:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat or flow of culture from Gaya to Japan is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan. Similarly Japan dislikes adding more cultural inflow from Korea to Japan's ancient history. This lead to Japan refusing to open the tombs after a couple of the tombs they opened had definate Korean artifacts in them. Horse shaped artifacts and Korean style pottery were initially excuvated, then the Imperial family stated the tombs will not be disturbed because they are sacred to our people. No further excuvation has been done on these tombs leading many to speculate and both sides insist on their version of theory.[1]

Here is another weird interpertation, and if I bring in counter arguements with references it is deleted. Look at this counter arguement reference, why do people keep deleteing it.

Here is the current version in the kofun period section

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy.[2]　According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan.[3] According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[4] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.[5]

You can see this current verion is definately biased There are reasons why you can't find certain Japanese references in english cause most historians have nullified or discredited those references for lack of evidence or confusion in interpertation. But someone keeps using these Japanese references and will delete other references that counter their arguements.

Here is my version, I thought this was more neutral than the current one:

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy.[2]　According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan.[3] According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[4] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.[5] Baekje's influence on Japanese culture has been a contentious issue in contemporary relations between South Korea and Japan. The exact nature of the relationship is always investigated. The above interpretations are not exactly accurate because ancient Chinese writing are difficult to deciper. People do not know when a sentence ends and where the puncutation such as commas are suppose to be. Even more confusing is one character can have multiple meaning depending on the context. The same sentence in the Book of Song can be translated to Yamato being an colony of Baekje's expansion efforts.[6] Then if this sentence structure is followed, the Book of Sui would show that Koreans were already the rulers of Yamato. Another point of arguement for contemporary historians is whether the Silla and Baekje princes were hostages or guest teacher who came to transmit culture. In addition, the Korean rulers were always put ahead of Japanese rulers, but below the Chinese rulers in all the text, leading people to see this order as the confucian rank. This situation has lead to both nations to further investigate the situation.

I'm not as jumpy on reverts on these theories as I am with the definate misrepresentation reverts in the Japanese War Crime section and WWII/Korea section. Most of my info are from the East Asian studies courses I took and I try not to be POV. I'm only trying to correct the current POV. Anyways thanks for leaving me a note. --4.23.83.100 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working group?[edit]

Hi Reuben,

Thanks for your hard work on many Korea-related articles. I notice that you've done a lot of work on North Korean articles, and I wonder if you'd be interested in joining the newly-formed DPRK working group in the Korea WikiProject. Not sure how useful (or not) it will be, but it would be great if we can build some momentum towards improving Wikipedia's coverage of this area. -- Visviva 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same[edit]

Hi, it looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now at Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer. Please help. Thanks. Room218 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I have a good source about the Korean war history published from Korean National Army Department, but it is written in Korean. So, I would like to send it to you if you are Korean. --Hairwizard91 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see PDF icon in this page [3]. It is military history from Gojoseon to Unified Silla.
This page[4] may have more books including the Korean war--Hairwizard91 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea map[edit]

I do see the resemblance on the maps, the map's I used were unclassiffied US government (military) and public domain maps to make mine, along with news reports of administrative changes. I did run into a similar problem on a map for Somalia I was making until I noticed that the Marine Corps map seemed to rip off a Mapquest one (IIRC) so I didn't make it. In this case though I don't think it should be a problem since the detailed map I have is from '98 and this one seems to be from 2000. And if you are wondering, maps published by the US Government are not copyright protected, so that should not be a problem.Orthuberra 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baekgwa[edit]

The "map" link should render automatically now in all articles with empas_b specified. Of course, there are some such articles that have no image associated. If that becomes an issue, maybe we should add a "nomap" option or something. By the way, I've never been very happy with the formatting for that template -- it's a little bulky for my taste -- so if you have a notion of any other good changes, please do feel free to make them. Happiness, -- Visviva 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, think I've got it now. empas_desc sets the label (defaults to "Map"); empas_m specifies the extension if it something other than 001. Setting empas_m=no makes the link disappear; some existing uses of the template need to be updated to take advantage of that. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoeryong[edit]

Hi. Can you add more material to the Hoeryong concentration camp article? i'm very intrested to know how does the camp is look inside. i'm also intrested in the city itself Hoeryong. how it looks like? thanks. Superzohar Talk 14:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Superzohar Talk 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need some help[edit]

hello. can you please help me find some information about town of Onsong? im very curious about this town in northern north korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superzohar (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-North Korean border[edit]

Hi. can you help me find some information on the 19 km Russian-North Korean border, and on the north korean border town of Tumangan, maybe from the korean wikipedia or this link- it think it is on the topic [5]. Thanks Superzohar Talk 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Tumangang Workers' District is the north korean border town? i noticed in google earth that there are lines of buildings and i saw the bridge. Are these houses? Superzohar Talk 08:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologization.[edit]

I am sorry. But, I do want to make one thing sure. That page was NOT written by me. I share my account with 3 poeple. One of them must have written it. I do not do things like those. I deleted it myself after I saw it. If it disturbed you and others a lot, I apologize for letting my other account members use it. I tried to exclude them, but they wouldn't listen to me, so I tried making 2 more accounts, but, they also joined both of them. I am SO CONFUSED right now. I am being accused of things THAT I DID NOT DO!!!!!!!!!! Why does life have to be so confusing. At least, can you please help me? Maybe it was my fault for joining Wikipedia from the beginning.Orthodoxy 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 06 -ok, thank you for your reply. I did change my password. Everything will work out well from now, and pages like Dokdo will be never created again. NEVER.Orthodoxy 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A Question.[edit]

How do you delete pages? (Please excuse my ignorance. I am a deletionist, but I do not know how to delete pages!) Orthodoxy 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-ok. I will leave the page as it is. And, previously, you said that "I" was only using a point of view of a Korean, and didn't keep the neutrality of the dokdo and the ê³ êµ¬ë ¤ page. I didn't do that too, it was probably my former account sharer. Well, everything is over and I do not have to worry so much. Thank you. 진심으로 감사하옵니다 大人.Orthodoxy 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that I used 한국놈 and 중국놈 in user Cranezer's talk page? And, this is an already settled problem, but how did you know that my account sharer created the User: Dokdo page? They are just questions that I am curious of. I just thought about them last night and wondered how in the world you knew it. Are you a secret administrator? (no offense)Orthodoxy 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was written by ME. I deleted it because I thought that it was embarassing to show those kind of things to an administrator. But, now I know that you are not an admin. Which, does not change who you are. And, thank you for your reply. I have to admit that I used the word il bon nom and joong gook nom, and I apologize for it. I just meant to use it on a user's talk page. (I wasn't trying to be racist, just talking informerly to a Korean fellow that I knew for years in Korean Wiki). And, if you want to know what kind of contributions I really made, go to.... oh, I just relized that I redirected that page. Excuse my language for this whole text. I would not say things in such manner from now on. I just had to do it to describe this current situation. Au revoir.Orthodoxy 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai[edit]

Hi, thanks for the compliment on Hyundai. I'm learning that it's pretty complicated, but you'd think it's famous enough to draw more interested editors. I'm a so-called 1.5 gen, first language Korean. I've been told I don't have an accent in either language, but I can't judge for myself.... ㅐ probably does sound a lot like ㅔ in fast speech, but there certainly is a distinction, just like there is a small but audible distinction between 게 and 계. CronusXT 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about posting to the wrong page. I read the link to Korean language, but I'm not familiar with IPA. Is the article saying that the distinction between 세다 and 새다 is disappearing in Seoul? That both are pronounced like 세다? That's news to me & very surprising. Sometimes it's hard to hear in fast speech, like the English "ken" and "can", but I would not say they are merging into ㅔ, at least from my experience of FOB Koreans and my travels to Korea. But I'm not a lingust. CronusXT 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After repeating it to myself dozens of times, I would agree that ㅐ is not exactly like "a" in apple, but slightly less open. I don't know if this makes any sense, but if "a" in apple was a 10, and ㅔ or "e" in ken was a 1, I'd say ㅐ is about an 8, very slightly less "open" than "a" but much closer to it than to "e". Am I making any sense? CronusXT 03:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about me[edit]

Hello, I have noticed you are accusing me of being another editor, please don't, I'm not here for trouble, I know you don't want bias, neither do I, it needs to be neutral, not bias towards the "best side" --RuleBrittania 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[edit]

Have a look here--MONGO 11:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the comment.[edit]

Appreciate the comment. Responded on my page, forgot to mention on yours. So, consider it mentioned. I think (hope) the spam situation got resolved. Sadly, I'm not all that knowledgeable on dark matter etc. Though I do tend a bit more toward some non-standard cosmological notions, as you mentioned. Though I try not to too badly let it influence me. You might want to check out Martian spherules. Just added a few rather interesting references there. If you follow that stuff at all. The interesting bits, I think, are the article on spherule generation via "sedimentation" versus "impact vaporization and conglomeration/cooling" (leaning toward the impact rather than the unproven "groundwater sedimentation/concretion" hypothesis). Moreover, some interesting results come out of the study of plasmas, lightning, and electric fields, which HAVE yielded spherule structures not entirely unlike Martian spherules. *Raises an eyebrow.* Actually there's a rather interesting article in that regard on thunderbolts.info (I included a link from the talk page of Martian spherules, but didn't put it in the main article, since they're currently considered "fringe" or at least non-academic, despite putting out some very interesting physical results on this issue). Anyway, hope the articles referenced are relatively balanced... And that "debunkers" or "knights of the big bang" don't start willy-nilly deleting notable references they don't agree with, which seems to be an unfortunate pattern on WP. ;o] Hehe. Though if we suddenly see the articles relating to "plasma" processes suddenly disappear, we'll probably know WHY! *Sigh* Hope you're having a good one. Peace. Mgmirkin 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rusk Documents[edit]

No problem about the revert; I'm not reverting back, we'll figure it out on the talk page. I left a note there about the relevant section of the documents I was looking at. Komdori 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Dokdo thing...[edit]

Hi Reuben,

Well, page revisions don't reflect actual titles at the time -- that is, if an article was at X and is now at Y, the revision will display with title Y even if the title was actually X at the time.

My assertion was based on three things: a) my vague recollection of the old-time status quo; b) the fact that "Liancourt Rocks" appears first in the first version of the article, which strongly suggests that was the page name at the time; c) comparing the move log for LR with the move log for Dokdo -- the first move recorded there was from LR to D, and was reverted within the hour.

I may be wrong about the unilateral thing; it's possible I have this confused with other disputes. They do all tend to blur together after a while... ;-) I'll check further if I have time. -- Visviva 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help in Translation[edit]

Will you help me translate these please? Historic Photo. and Historic Photo2 Quietmartialartist 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Checkuser[edit]

Thank you for the heads-up. I find the result rather baffling. Cydevil38 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben, thanks I appreciate your taking the time to leave me a message. It's pretty much a lost cause. These individuals have succeeded in smearing and discrediting me. My belief at this point is it's better to just give up. They have no interest in the truth coming out and even if it did will continue to smear and harrass me. I'll leave it alone for now, because I know if I don't they are going to suceed in the next step which is to get rid of me completely, which is likely what they want. Davidpdx 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki/russian[edit]

No problem. You were definitely not overeager, merely helpful.Bakaman 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

De Long Islands[edit]

Hi Count Nesselrode - I think we should distinguish several different types of territorial claim to the Arctic and north Pacific islands. Whichever type of claims exist, we should definitely give a full description in the articles; but without confusion of one type for another.

  1. Initial claim by explorers upon landing or discovery.
  2. Claimed and settled / continuously occupied.
  3. Claim through purchase.
  4. Official annexation by government based on above.
  5. Continuing claim by governments not in control of territory.

Some of the Arctic islands appear to have been claimed for the US in sense #1, and Wrangel Island was claimed for a while in sense #2 (but possibly for Canada, not the US). The State Department Watch arguments about #3 are not supported by anyone else that I can find, and are not consistent with the boundary line delineated by the Alaska Purchase itself. I haven't seen any evidence for #4 in any of these cases, and the US government explicitly denies any ongoing claims of type #5. The articles do need more information about which types of historical claims have existed, and when. --Reuben 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Russian islands: I think that Russia has made #4 quite apparent but that it was faulty in that there was no #1, #2, or #3 to support its #4. I know the U.S. has fulfilled #1. A #1 is better than a faulty #4. In the polar regions, a #1 makes itself a #5 until the #1 is officially given up (according to the international precedent set by Denmark v. Norway 1933). If someone can show me the proof of a Russian #1, #2, or #3, (at any time in history!) then I will relegate my part in the De Long Islands article to a short piece about the years 1881 until ---- that the U.S. owned the islands. I'm assuming of course that the Russians didn't claim the islands before we found them.CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should look for documentation of #1, #2, or #3 from Russia. I don't see how an initial claim by an explorer can obligate a government to officially incorporate territory, though; even the Guano Islands Act, which first allowed ship captains to claim guano-bearing atolls for the US, allowed the president to decide whether or not to annex each island. If a government says that it makes no claim to a piece of land, then there is quite simply no claim. If you can show that there is basis for a claim, or that certain authorities (e.g. Alaska Legislative session) think there should be a claim, then that can go in the article. Are you arguing that the first visitor, and only the first visitor, establishes ownership for all time? If so, I think that's mistaken. An initial claim doesn't establish permanent ownership in the absence of continuing effective control and official recognition, as far as I know; and the second or third or Nth to arrive can make an effective claim if they succeed in establishing these things. Of course, all this is subject to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The US State Department is an authoritative source for territorial claims of the United States, and our own understanding is of secondary importance. --Reuben 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Messapian language[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Reuben! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Good luck[edit]

Just compare this and this. Judging by the context, the former was written primarily by non-native speakers. Желаю всего наилучшего! --Ghirla-трёп- 04:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Reuben, have a look at this one as well: [6]. The point is, that Желать puts the "direct object" (well, what is considered direct object in the English sentence) in the genitive case. "успехи!" is only possible as an exclamation on its own, but even then "успехов!" (or "успеха!") occur (the verb Желать being implied). Another reason why you may have remembered wrongly, is "Желать удачи". With feminine words in -a the genitive singular is usually the same as the nominative (or accusative) plural, so if you make the mistake of using the accusative plural (based on the fact that you think it is just a direct object), it does not matter. But "успех" is a masculine substantive, so it does matter, as the two forms are not the same. --Pan Gerwazy 08:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinmiyangyo[edit]

Sorry, I didn't respond to your last message, I was upset that yet another poll foundered because of the concerted opposition of two determined editors. I was very upset. The way that the page was moved may not have been ideal, but the alternative was yet another exhausting poll and I can't see what good would have come out of it. All Philip did was to move it to one name that had a rough consensus, leaving open the option to discuss adjustments to the present name. If we open yet another discussion about the move from the former name, we will open a can of worms that will distract us from more important duties. In any case, in two days I will be behind the Great Firewall and I won't be able to follow the developments. All I can say that I hope you will proceed with caution.--Amban 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wrangell Island[edit]

This move is part of an effort to make it look as if there is a US claim to certain Arctic islands of Russia. The US State Department has made it very clear that "None of the islands or rocks above were included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and they have never been claimed by the United States, although Americans were involved in the discovery and exploration of some of them." [7] The move of Wrangel Island with one "l" (an island of Russia) to Wrangell Island (Northern) is based on the assertions of a small lobbying group called State Department Watch. These claims, along with the change in spelling, are supported only by this private group, and not backed up by any reliable source. Would you mind helping to undo these unjustified moves? Thanks. --Reuben 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not passing judgment on the merits of the move; I was just restoring the history of those pages to their proper place. I'll be happy to undo the move with consensus against it (or rather lack of consensus for it, as the old way was the norm. Just place the request at WP:RM and follow the instructions there. Don't list it under the uncontroversial moves section, as it's clearly controversial. —METS501 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Constant[edit]

Thanks for your help with this problem on the Science Reference Desk. As a reward I'll give you another name to add to your same first and last names list - Kelly Kelly (it's another fictional one, but better than nothing). Cheers, --jjron 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another one, Tracy Tracy (again not her 'real' name) from The Primitives. --jjron 08:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature on Reference Desk[edit]

Hi Reuben! I noticed that you added my signature in the middle of a sentence. This looks like a typo, but I'm just checking since this is the second time my signature has been added to a comment in the last day (the other instance was a mis-attribution of a quote by another editor [8]

I only ask because after two occurrences, I was beginning to wonder if it was some new vandalism fad, but it appears after tracking down the sources that both are minor errors. Let me know if I'm missing anything, and please be careful with the mid-sentence "typos" that put my username in places it doesn't belong!. Thanks, Nimur 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Let me know if [reply]

Onsong town[edit]

Hello. Can you help me find a picture of Onsong town?? Second question, which city is lies on the chinese side of the river, in front of Onsong town? thank you Superzohar Talk 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will add them to my North Korea collection. I want to be sure: What is Onsong? is it a town that called so? (Onsong-up...) [10] and Namyang is part of this town? it's quiet confusing. Superzohar Talk 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Is this article about Onsong-up?[11] Superzohar Talk 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Names (Again)[edit]

Don't forget Abraham Abraham Bunthorne 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, have a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Fictional_character_w.2F_same_first_and_last_name! Edison's reply sounds particularly intriguing, though your list looks strict (no Boutros Boutros Ghali, e.g.). How about Lang Lang?

Deep-level stations[edit]

Hampstead station on the London Underground is 192ft below surface level. 64.236.80.62 11:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Names[edit]

Hey, I added the bit about "Messiah Messiah." It is entirely true, but I understand if you choose to delete it. --Jai

Hi there! If you're the Reuben I think you are, you spent a few years in the vicinity of a park donated by Griffith J. Griffith... cheers, from the Guy Who Knows The Lyrics! Three white leopards 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got it... never played with Diz, but I am a man with a happy sound. :) Take care, & hope to see you 'round here soon! Three white leopards 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country article issue[edit]

Hello. The account was created five days before it was used; saying more would perhaps infringe WP:BEANS. Thanks for alerting me to the problem! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kanzius[edit]

Well, we have different opinions. So argument like this tends to get heated up. Don't worry about your comment. Chris! my talk 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, Reuben. Sorry if you took my interventions at this article as editwarring. That is not the case... In the future, you can let me know if my edits are bothersome before posting a report at ANI, so that I can address your concerns, and self-revert is necessary to avoid 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanzius[edit]

Thanks! I'm not normally that sloppy - must be some N2 left in my bloodstream from two long dives yesterday. --Stephan Schulz 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants[edit]

Just took a look at your userpage. I really like the elephant joke. There is a lot of that going on around here, particularly over at first flying machine. I am going to try to improve the pre-19th century section - feel free to help me. Alexwoods 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd[edit]

Insufficient notability to be worth the trouble. If anything needs to be saved, we can put it in the article on the Chancellery (if that nasn't been moved to Kanzlerei. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the article as such; it's marginal, but it could stay. But it's not worth the eszett war. If it's not deleted, fine; if it is, the problem is solved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vossstrasse[edit]

I've read your response and I have to say that I regret using the word "dishonest". It's much too strong and I apologise for it. If you want me to remove the comment, I'll gladly do it. What I meant to say was that yes, I think Pmanderson is wrong about this issue (my reference to foreign spelling) but that's not something I have any problem with in any way. Needless to say, he's as entitled to his view as I am to mine and I fully respect his view although I disagree strongly with it. I do object to him trying to have the article deleted over the issue, and I saw that as disruptive. In my message about it, I also argued about the case of the spelling. With hindsight, it would have been better to have posted two separate messages about these issues. I understand that it's possible to get the impression that I called him disruptive for defending the 'sss', something I never intended. In any case, I found it strange that you once again came back to this issue after I had tried to explain it once already, but dishonest was definitely not the appropriate word to use. JdeJ 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection[edit]

It is OK to move them to Komsomolskoy Pravdy Islands in order to preserve the Russian genitive. But since many maps in English have have other options, like "Komsomolsky Pravdy", make sure that they all redirect there.Mohonu 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ostrova Faddeya, I was also amazed that I didn't get any hits at all with Oстрова фaддея in the internet. But those islands do exist. You can check it in any good Russian map. I wonder why no one writes about them or why no one has put Russian sources about them in the internet, for in English you get about 400 hits. Has the site: www.bigarctic.ru/Eng/ekotourism.htm not been translated into Russian? Regarding Sibiriakow, that is the way it appeared in Encyclopaedia Britannica, but you are right, perhaps the article head should be Sibiriakov. You may go ahead and change it. Mohonu 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Vladimir Voronin[edit]

I thought I had found a second name for the Faddey Islands (Thaddeus Islands). Then it turned out that it was a former name of Faddeyevsky Island, in the New Siberian Islands. So I am glad you found out what was wrong and you got good hits. But please do me a favour: Could you please find out when Captain Vladimir Voronin was born? I have tried and failed. Thank you.Mohonu 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was great that you found that. I despaired of finding those dates. I began studying Russian long ago, but never really got to be serious about it. Regretfully, other things in life led me somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Mohonu 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer. I wish I would be as skilled in Russian. Yes, I have something to ask from you. What is there about the Zhelonskyy islands? I find nothing. They belong to Sakha (Yakutia).Mohonu 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, it may be the Shelonskiy Islands. But I find no information on them. I Know the northernmost one is called Mara.Mohonu 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC) No description? I guess these are marshi islands, like the coast. Thanks anyway.Mohonu 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nordvik[edit]

Thank you Reuben, I think this gives me enough material to make a small page on Makar and the Shelonskiy Islands. Now I have another question. In the 1930s there was a harbor in the Laptev Sea called Nordvik. I think there was a salt mine and a penal colony also. Is that place still inhabited? In some maps (Encarta) it is still marked as a town, but when I google on that location (one can get very close there) I see only wilderness. There seem to be no signs of human habitation. If so the interesting thing to do would be to find out when it was depopulated or abandoned. I know that a number of Russian Far Northern outposts were abandoned in the 1990s, but maybe Nordvik was abandoned before. Thanks.Mohonu 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islands[edit]

Reuben, which islands are these? НАРЕЧИ Остров (вкл. Журавлиный, Начальный, Голые о-ва). I found them listed under "Kara Sea". But I don't find them on the map.Mohonu 06:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are riverine islands, I am not sure whether to ibnclude them under "Kara Sea" islands. What do you think?.

On the other hand, many Kara Sea islands have not been put in Wikipedia yet. If you go to Kara Sea, you will see a map I put up yesterday with the position of the main islands and island groups. In the upper right corner you will see two island groups: Firnley and Heiberg (Ru: Geyberg). Apparently Nansen anchored close to them and Boris Vilkitsky mentions that he saw them in the distance. But I have found precious little in English sources. Would you please check out Russian sources? Thanks again.Mohonu 06:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of names[edit]

You may want to add something to the Geiberg Islands article. I am off for the weekend, so the Firnley Islands one will have to wait a little. Thanks again for finding the information.

I usually can find where the name came from in Russian islands, but in the case of the Mona Islands I was not able to find where the name "Mona" came from. Who were Heiberg, Firnley and Galland-Hansen? Were they Nansen's companions? Thank you so much for your help.Mohonu 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted your link of the Royal Geographical article in Mona Islands, but was not able to read the second page. How do you get to read it?Mohonu 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firnley[edit]

Reuben, is something interesting or characteristic written here [12] that I can use for an article of the Firnley Islands? Mohonu 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Rusanov[edit]

It is not kown where and when exacly Rusanov died, that is why there is a question mark beside the date. I am glad you found where the picture was, because in this site [13] all of Rusanov's pictures have been removed.

One task that I would like to get into, but my Russian is insufficient is whether the Kara Sea islands were visited by the original Siberian inhabitants (Nenets? or any of the groups formerly called Samoyedes) of the area. Only concerning the Faddey Islands I was able to find some reference to anthropological remains. Informations about this subject would give so much depth to the articles. Thanks again.Mohonu 11:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taymyr and Vaygach icebreakers[edit]

Try as I might, I have been unable to find what was the fate of these two icebreakers that were used in Boris Vilkitsky's 1910-1915 expeditions. I thought you could help. Mohonu 06:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herald Island surface measurement[edit]

After consulting maps of Herald Island in order to draw a picture, I realized that the area on the article (82 square km) seems excessive. I wonder where that number came from. What is the real area of this island?Mohonu 07:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the area could not be 82 sq Km. The island is very narrow towards its eastern side. Even so, 8 sq Km seems too little. Perhaps the maps include surface that is under the sea at low tide.Mohonu 02:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to be merged[edit]

Newman, here there are some articles that are now ready to disappear. I have prepared them already for merger but don't know how to take the next step: Sibiryakova Island , Baron Eduard Von Toll, Zhokhova Island, Oleny Island, Izvestiy TSIK Islands, Thanks. Mohonu 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Reuben, I did intend to send this to Newman. You did tell me you were not editing anymore. Thank you for the explanations.Mohonu 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byrranga Mountains in Taymyr, not Kamchatka[edit]

It was a lapsus on my part. Thank you for pointing it out Reuben. I found some interesting information on Stolbovoy Island today.Mohonu 12:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I had a motorbike accident, my son Benjamin who was in the back was totally unhurt, but I had some bad scratches. It must have affected my head. Perhaps that is why the Kamchatka was where it should have not been. I should have taken some rest. By the way, the Byrranga Mountains are one of the least explored places on earth.Mohonu 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've a wonderful sense of humour[edit]

and I think you should restore your old user page - you really had me going, over on Talk:National Defence Commission of North Korea - it's very difficult to edtecxt a poker-face online (grin). All the best! Alice.S 09:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but there was no poker face involved. My comments stand as they are, and I can see that you are still making questionable edits to change one variety of English to another. You are most welcome to snag any material from my old talk page if you like it; I doubt I will resurrect it. Happy editing. --Reuben 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

It looks great! You're right, I don't really understand very much of it, but you've made it readable and worthy of the encyclopedia. Please accept this barnstar as a token of gratitude from those attempting to knock out the backlog at Category:Cleanup by month.

The E=mc² Barnstar
For responding to the pleas of non-physics-minded editors for someone competent to clean up Isometries in physics (which had lain in an unreadable condition for ages, with a cleanup tag for two years). Thank you! Unschool (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi Assembly[edit]

Yea, you did a sweet job on its sourcing, so now its a good description. Mbisanz (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Very appreciated. You may like to know I have elderly relatives, one on each side of the family, called Robert Roberts and Griffith Griffiths. Neıl ☎ 11:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barvikha[edit]

Well done for the interesting article. very good work i must say. Superzohar Talk 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Central Clinical Hospital[edit]

Hello! You are invited to add some interesting information/improve this article. Superzohar Talk 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purwokerto article[edit]

Good work on this article - I attempted to make it better, you succeeded. Good work! BWH76 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moriah College, Sydney[edit]

Yes so, please tell me what is wrong with the grammar. I would like to know. Please do tell me so I can improve it in the future. Dbmoodb (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have correct the that to a who, for style reasons as you point out. The clause was in commas so I believe that it is fine if it is not I have missed it. My edit corrects and adds facts. If you are not considered jewish you cannot attend. Yes it is bulk but this is a fact and cannot be ignored. If you want to word it go on, but do not leave out the facts. The flow is altered. The flow is flow. Flow can change. Please phrase it differently if you think you can do it better. Dbmoodb (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme People's Assembly former presidents[edit]

In the article Supreme People's Assembly there is template that contains the former chairmen of the North Korean parliament. But Between 1983 and 1998 its not mentioned who was the chairman (or chairmen). I didnt find any information, maybe u can find please? Superzohar Talk 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former defense ministers[edit]

I started articles about Minister of People's Armed Forces O Chin-u (d. 1995) and and Minister of People's Armed Forces Choi Kwang (1995-1997) (d.1997). Maybe u can expand them. I think they were very influential figures in the North Korean politics.

Secondly, maybe do u have information about the North Korean counterpart of the Russian Barvikha/Rublyovka? An area in Pyongyang which is used to be populated with high-ranking officials?

thanks, Superzohar Talk 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the O Chin-u expansion. Superzohar Talk 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currency naming guidelines change proposal survey[edit]

You have previously participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please go here to register your opinion on two proposals for currency naming guidelines. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashi[edit]

In an article on Dmitry Medvedev in Ria Novosti, named "Neither bread, nor circuses", its written "The president's most militant and loyal supporter, the Nashi (Ours) youth movement, is dissolving under the guise of reorganization". Do u know smth about it? Its quiet surprising Superzohar Talk 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khasan[edit]

Hi Reuben. I dont understand smth: There are talking about restoring the Russian-North Korean border rail? but there is already a railroad with trains connect between Russia & North Korea from time to time no? In January 26 article it was written "A Russian delegation has arrived in North Korea to discuss a joint project to rebuild a cross-border rail link, the North's state media said". The wikipedia article on Khasan talks about a pilot project that was supposed to be in 2006. Maybe do u think it should be updated? Superzohar Talk 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • If the railway comes from Khasan to Rajin so what for Tumangang exists?
  • Can you add interlinks to other wikipedia languages in Tumangang and Hunchun?
  • I think it would be nice to add table in the North Korean-Russian relations with years, and level of trade turnover and amounts of passengers/freight cross the border each year. If u would find those statistics it will be easier.
  • In Euroasia Daily Monitor they wrote "On September 5 (2006), Russian and North Korean railway officials had talks in Vladivostok to discuss a project to restore a 40-kilometer railway link between Khasan and the North Korean port of Rajin"

always enjoy to work with u, Zohar! Superzohar Talk 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean-Russian trade[edit]

Hi! I added table contains the annual trade turnover between the two countries in Russia-North Korea relations. I found the statistics from different sites. Do you have more information or u think some of the numbers are not correct? Superzohar Talk 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on Mexican peso images[edit]

I'm afraid I don't know. Perhaps a look on the Bank of Mexico website will clarify things?
Dove1950 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isometries in physics[edit]

I see you have a history of working on the article Isometries in physics. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.t-net.ne.jp/~keally/kofun.html
  2. ^ a b Chinese History Record Book of Song : 宋書 列傳第五十七 夷蠻 : è©”é™¤æ­¦ä½¿æŒç¯€ã€éƒ½ç£å€­æ–°ç¾…ä»»é‚£åŠ ç¾…ç§¦éŸ“æ…•éŸ“å…­åœ‹è«¸è»äº‹ã€å®‰æ±å¤§å°‡è»ã€å€­çŽ‹ã€‚èˆˆæ­»ï¼Œå¼Ÿæ­¦ç«‹ï¼Œè‡ªç¨±ä½¿æŒç¯€ã€éƒ½ç£å€­ç™¾æ¿Ÿæ–°ç¾…ä»»é‚£åŠ ç¾…ç§¦éŸ“æ…•éŸ“ä¸ƒåœ‹è«¸è»äº‹ã€å®‰æ±å¤§å°‡è»ã€å€­åœ‹çŽ‹ [14][15]
  3. ^ a b Chinese History Record Book of Sui : 隋書 東夷伝 第81巻列伝46 : 新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恆通使往來 [16][17]
  4. ^ a b Korean History Record Samguk Sagi : 三國史記 新羅本紀 : 元年 三月 與倭國通好 以奈勿王子未斯欣爲質 [18]
  5. ^ a b Korean History Record Samguk Sagi : 三國史記 百済本紀 : 六年 夏五月 王與倭國結好 以太子腆支爲質 秋七月 大閱於漢水之南　[19]
  6. ^ From Paekche to Origin of Yamato
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reuben/Archive/Archive_01&oldid=1143262273"