User talk:Historiographer
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 Archives |
|---|
AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Korean nationalism
Hey Historiographer, I just wanted to comment on my edit from Korean nationalism. I can completely understand why you would be concerned about using a Youtube link as a source, and I agree with you that we should avoid doing that. I wanted to apologize, because I reverted you when I should not have (I misunderstood the diffs). Therefore, I have restored your edit, along with your section titles and your re-organization. Please accept my apology and I have self-reverted my edit :-)
-- Joren (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, I completely understand your position. Your version is the best way currently. Thank you for your effort, mr. Joren.--Historiographer (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a Korean, some minority of Koreans adhering ultranationalism are killing themselves. Then again, I personally believe that Goguryeo is culturally pre-Islamic nomadic Persian. Kinda depressing to see the multitude of disputes in world history. Komitsuki (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I re-added the Korean nationalism#Pure blood theory and the Korean nationalism#Reconstructed history sections, but I tried to go through it and remove the unsourced claims as well as the claims that were being supported by the wrong sources. I'm still worried about the historical reconstruction section; I removed the stuff about Chinese characters and fantasy claims because they didn't seem notable and did seem like POV, and the sources were a blog, a Youtube posting, and a newsgroup posting. After I got finished going through it, we only have one source for the entire section. Anyway, please see Talk:Korean nationalism for details. If you have any concerns about the remaining sections, please discuss on the talk page and make suggestions for how we can make it better. Thank you,
- -- Joren (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
Historiographer -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.
Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves.
On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Mediation
I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:
- A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
- Leave it at its current name?
- To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
- To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
- To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
- Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.
- A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
- In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.
In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
History of Korea template
Please discuss before making changes to the History of Korea template. The discussion page lists many good reasons against your version. Your only comment for reverting back to the incorrect version is because you "don't think so" and because the other editors are IP editors, which is an ad hominem attack. Please be civil. Thank you. 99.88.103.225 (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think this shapes that is not like your own standard are fair?--Historiographer (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Unequal treaties
Please consider Talk:Unequal Treaty#Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905. --Tenmei (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
November 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Tsushima Island, you may be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It was just only once. Why are you picking on me? That incident also occured in southern Korea, not just Japan. If you put it that way, it is you that are in the disruptive editing based on Japanese view, isn’t it? Do it properly in everything instead of nitpick.--Historiographer (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I remember, it was not me who added the Japanese name to the article. Even if it was me, it would have been impossible for me to provide the Korean name as I do not understand Korean language. You should have left the Japanese name as it was and simply added the Korean name to the article. You've been here for long enough to know this kind of edit is inappropriate, haven't you? Please do not repeat the same mistake. I don't think you are a careless editor. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree with it in a degree. Thank you for your advice.--Historiographer (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I remember, it was not me who added the Japanese name to the article. Even if it was me, it would have been impossible for me to provide the Korean name as I do not understand Korean language. You should have left the Japanese name as it was and simply added the Korean name to the article. You've been here for long enough to know this kind of edit is inappropriate, haven't you? Please do not repeat the same mistake. I don't think you are a careless editor. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your edits in the Anti-Korean sentiment article. I actually don't understand why did you removed the other references of the word "gook" in various dictionaries. It's all sourced, so where is the problem, then? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Umm... It is too much excessive explanations, and these contents was originally included in Anti-Japanese sentiment. Thus, I decide that removing these sections are better than moving to original article. Finally, I also don't understand why did you moved these references of the word "gook" in Anti-Korean sentiment.--Historiographer (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why? What a strange question. The gook text in Anti-Japanese sentiment is simply copypasted from the Anti-korean sentiment article so it belongs to the latter. I won't revert your second edit because I myself find these citations of the dictionaries very confusing; the term "gook" is often associated with koreans. Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
Hello
My knowledge of ancient Korean history is weak so I was hoping you could verify the new edits in the Goguryeo page? I'm not very sure about some of the info. Thank you! --KaraKamilia (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Someone edits this article before I'm connecting into the Wikipedia. Current revision absolutely nothing wrong. Thanks--Historiographer (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Revert
Please note that I've reverted a small edit here. My explanation for this and other edits can be found on the article's talk page.
Please take a look at these diffs at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China:
- A diff 21:29, 15 December 2010 Tenmei (78,360 bytes) (→Japan: new section)
- B diff 21:36, 15 December 2010 Tenmei (78,630 bytes) (→Japan: tweaking)
- C diff 01:35, 16 December 2010 Tenmei (80,379 bytes) (→Japan: explaining revert of Historiographer's disputed edit)
If my words are not clear, please point out the parts which need further explaining. I will try to rewrite using different words. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- diff 14:16, 20 August 2010 Historiographer (22,012 bytes) (It is unusually overemphasized about Korea.)
- diff 02:09, 21 August 2010 Historiographer (22,012 bytes) (If you want to emphasize tributary action of Korea, You should applyed the fair criteria to other states.)
- IMO, this demonstrates a kind of constructive engagement with your implied criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- You always have a lot of words, especially when you find fault with something the other user including me did. If you put it that way, there was also inconsistency in your criticism. See this page. Thus, You're in no position to accused to me. May be you will trumpet my words the other talk pages. I am confident. --Historiographer (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Historiographer -- Please look at my diffs in a different way. Rather than viewing my words as a kind of criticism or a complaint, please assess my words as a kind of proof that I am taking your diffs seriously. I am examining and parsing your edits fully and directly. In that way, my diffs can be described as encouraging, helpful, constructive.
- May I repeat what I've already written above? The number of words is not as important as the meaning of the sentences.
B. IMO, this demonstrates a kind of constructive engagement with your implied criticism.
Is there a specific problem which might be helped by additional or different words? Is there a specific sentence which is not understood? --Tenmei (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I created Yemaek page.
This may affect Goguryeo page to which you are giving a lot of contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomanari (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent works! Gomanari. I also amend this article partially as a wikified. Thanks your contribute again.--Historiographer (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your correction! See you frequently on Wiki! -- Gomanari
Edit war warning on Template:History of Korea
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:History of Korea. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Kusunose 04:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Huh, edit-war was completed in last friday. I want to know about the meaning of Your belated response. But, Absolutely, I'm break off edit wars until showing alternative version.--Historiographer (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing the edit history, the edit war sometimes stops few days then resumes so I don't think my warnings are too late. Anyway, Thank you for your consideration. --Kusunose 05:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You should stop accusation about users, and discuss improving the content. Please avoid reverting just for fun. Other people are trying to make the template better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.77.183.247 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Who saying I ever did it like your words? You or Your other IPs? Don´t provoke a quarrel uselessly.--Historiographer (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Historiographer...I understand ur concerns and see current version is better, more objective related to Tang Taizong. As u stated, it is not even the history of Taizong, so I suggest to delete the whole paragraph of Taizong, just said Taizong failed to achieve goal etc...Not to mention the injury etc. What do u think.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.3 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
List of sovereign states
This list uses a single source for translations and transliterations. However names are transliterated in this source, the article will reflect this, with no exception. Whether or not that is the style commonly adopted within the country does not matter. Stick to the source. If you disagree with this system, get a consensus for change before repeating the same edits. Nightw 04:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are slow, aren't you? We should do in Rome as the Romans do. It be quite the same.--Historiographer (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've explained to you why we're using the particular romanisation that we currently do. Again, if you disagree with this, bring it up on the talk page. Repeatedly making the same edit without consensus is a violation of Wikipedia's editing policy. Nightw 12:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Your reverts
I see you have already been noted as a problematic editor by others. Well, my message is, I am sure you know more about Korean history than I do, but please stop parading around the 2333 BC date in all possible and impossible places. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, See below category, if you put it that way, the below category is crushed. You also notice already mentioned term "legendary".--Historiographer (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent addition
-to sinophobia. Although one question: I've always thought 되놈 also had connotations with being dirty, am I right? So it can also mean dirty chinaman? Anyways, nice work. Kuebie (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Meaning that dirty chinaman is misinformed. Historically, 되놈 has originated from Jurchen and Manchus.--Historiographer (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for Comment
I am contacting you because of your edit here. Please share your opinion at Talk:Military Demarcation Line#Request for Comment. What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
| |||
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Good step in process of collaborative editing
Please accept my apology for delay in responding to your edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
Sea of Japan naming convention
I am reviving a discussion on the naming usage of Sea of Japan and East Sea. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. Chunbum Park (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gimbap, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The information is referenced. If you disagree with the content, please provide RS which contradicts the current ref. and use talk page first. I think historical records before the annexation would be preferable. Oda Mari (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Korean wikipedia explain: 김밥의 유래에 대해서는 ‘한국고유음식설’과 ‘일본유래설’이 있다.(Accroding to the origin of Gimbap, there are two views: Korean traditional or Japanese influence.) However, You just mentioned about Japanese influence view. In addition, you should give more neutrality reason for this article, while raising a dispute.--Historiographer (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I only restored the referenced material as a patroller after checking the ref were correct. If I remember correctly, I've never edited or add something to the article. I'm not interested in the article basically. It is a mystery to me that, unlike sushi, the article does not have the etymology nor the history section. It would be nice if you expand it with RS. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Joseon Dynasty. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Oda Mari (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, You are always blame me as if I hold firm to my view only. However, Your edit also show an inclination toward Japanese views. Please, don't assert only your opinions are right.--Historiographer (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Plus, this edit war was beginning by Jpatokal, but You are only threatening attitude toward me. That is showing about your antagonism for me and it is not neutrality. Isn't it?--Historiographer (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Joseon Dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Your edit was clearly not NPOV. It's white washing. If the dynasty was a sovereign state, there would not have been the article one in the Treaty of Shimonoseki . What do you think the meaning of the article one? And see this. The 1886 flag says 大清属国. You know 属国 means tributary state. Please stop refusing the historical fact and do not add the factual error to the article. Oda Mari (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, some materials showed that Korea is a absolute tributary of China. However, it is just formal, not practical. Many of trade and foreign relationship with imperial China was regared as a tributary one. Can it be so only Korea was described this?--Historiographer (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it was formal or practical, the dynasty was a tributary of China, wasn't it? That is why to describe the dynasty was a sovereign state was a factual error. "Can it be so only Korea was described this?" What do you mean by that? I don't understand your English clearly. Please paraphrase it. It was mentioned on Ryūkyū Kingdom. Is that what you wanted to say? Oda Mari (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, all of relationship with the Imperial China was regared as a tributary. Why did you only emphasized this facts to Korea?--Historiographer (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it was formal or practical, the dynasty was a tributary of China, wasn't it? That is why to describe the dynasty was a sovereign state was a factual error. "Can it be so only Korea was described this?" What do you mean by that? I don't understand your English clearly. Please paraphrase it. It was mentioned on Ryūkyū Kingdom. Is that what you wanted to say? Oda Mari (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You have been reported for a 3RR violation; nonetheless, I am still interested in your explanation for your reverts at Talk:Joseon_Dynasty#Here we go again.... Jpatokal (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Joseon signed unequal treaties to Qing.仁祖 宪文烈武明肃纯孝大王 李倧丁丑约条签订始末考刘为：清代朝鲜使团贸易制度述略 Imbonwwwww (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for your 3RR violation on Joseon dynasty, as per the 3RR report mentioned above. For details see here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Please use one account and stop 3RR. Imbonwwwww (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Who you calling a acting Vandal? You have no claim to rules.--Historiographer (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
I'll be working on Korean ethnic nationalism for a while
Feel free to help out when you get the chance. Kuebie (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think this article is so unreasonable contents. It should be removed, not name changes.--Historiographer (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Just everything about is suspect (and just lol how so many fucking Chinese users have it on their watchlist - I seriously can't do shit without somebody undoing my changes). It stays, for now. I'm planning on doing massive rewrites on the whole thing per Cydevil. Kuebie (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If you really wish to change the name of the section, you should participate in the ongoing discussion at talk page. Otherwise, you will be blocked for editing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice with threaten.--Historiographer (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain why my suggestion is construed as threating. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is the second time you changed the section name without participating the ongoing discussion. I will bring this to ANI if you do this again without discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, I do not anything after your threatening words. I also will bring this to ANI if you do deliberate deception toward Korea-related articles.--Historiographer (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Your tendency toward bias.
It is disturbing to me that you seem very biased as a native Korean. Please know that editing on Wikipedia is not for *defending* a position (such as the nationalist Korean side), but for allowing a fair discussion of all opinions. Please be careful, as some editors are beginning to notice a bias from you that is not according to the spirit of Wikipedia. If you want to be a Korean nationalist you will have to create your own website for that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.65.44 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to accuse me, please log-in your account, not personal attack on me via an IP.--Historiographer (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
Korea
Long time no see ! Can you take a look at
-
Korea 1592-1597, by Yug. Background to update.
I used the 1449 background you made. If you can provide a ~1590 background, or a 100% topographic background for this map, then I may display it in articles Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598). Regards ! Yug (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent map. However, it has some factual error.
- First, Japanese was not marching toward the Chagang region.
- Second, Bohai Sea is not there, instead this sea is the Yellow Sea.
- In addition, I think that if you added a Korean navies acts in this map, it made a map plentifully. Sincerely. --Historiographer (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hello ; ]
- For Changang, the my source clearly state this march.
- Stay: Bohai / Yellow, ok, to fix ; need a blank topo background (or is this 1449 background still occurate ?).
- Question: Have you a source for the Korean navies acts, or can you edit the map yourself and add the source ? Yug (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm.... I don't know how can making .svg file. Instead, I give a Korean laguage sources to you.1 (Red arrow is Japanese armies route) and 2 (Blue arrow is Korean navies' route)--Historiographer (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
May 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Japan–Korea disputes, you may be blocked from editing. As for your removal of referenced material, I do not understand why it is excess. Looking at the section, there are only Korean claims. I think the Japanese claim/reaction is needed to the section too. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
Edit warring on talk page
In particular, the Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states that:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikiquette alerts
Hello, Historiographer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
Ban Ki-moon birthplace
Hello! Would you please explain why you have reverted my edit in Ban Ki-moon article? I think that since Korea was not a sovereign country in 1944 we need to mention that. Elmor (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I wrote my opinion in talk page. See talk.--Historiographer (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Quigley (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are also not threat the other user with your own nationalistic views. If not, you have noticed about these things to the other edit-war user even if that is IP.--Historiographer (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A complaint has been filed about your editing of Goguryeo
Please see WP:AN3#User:Historiographer reported by User:Quigley (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- See the result of this case at WP:AN3#User:Historiographer reported by User:Quigley (Result: Warned). If you continue to leave nationalistic edit summaries you are risking a block for disruptive editing. Try to work toward consensus for your changes and make use of the talk page. There is an issue of long-term warring here which could lead to sanctions unless you are willing to make an effort. I observe that sometimes your changes to the article result in better English; thank you for that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, Thanks a lot for your advise.--Historiographer (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Question on a Korean source
Historiographer, I saw your name in the category of native speakers of Korean, and I see that you're currently active. If you have time I have a question regarding some sources added to Kuril Islands dispute in this edit. I can't read anything on the pages, but the layout makes me question whether or not these are actually reliable sources or are forums. The news20.busan.com looks legitimate, but on nate.com, I see what appear to be social networking buttons and other things that mean that while this could be a legit news source, it very well may not be. I don't need you to verify any of the actual facts or writing, just to confirm that those do meet those are reliable sources. I'm willing to AGF that the contributions are accurate, but since the user is new, they may not know the details of our RS rules. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Umm... these various sources indicates visiting Kuril of some member of the National Assembly of Korea. Frankly, most of Koreans support Russian claim, but Hangyun's references has slightly lacked about Korean populars' thought. Thanks.--Historiographer (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Joseon Dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Using sources on one side is not NPOV. Some may say it's fully independent, but some say not. It'd definitely controversial. Please do not push a favorable POV to you. If you cannot agree, ask at the NPOV noticeboard, Dispute resolution noticeboard, or wherever you would think appropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at a stub article about a law professor at Inha University. Perhaps you may have suggestions or comments? --Tenmei (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know all about him, and it seems to personal promotion article.--Historiographer (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
|
Historical Kdramas
- The Princess' Man - a tragic love story of King Sejo's daughter Lee Se-ryung and Kim Joongso's son Seung-ryo
- Baek Dong-soo - a swordsman who protocted Yi San by --Sunuraju (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but I've reverted the edits. They don't appear to be related to sinophobia, the writing is poor and not neutral, and the sources are not in English. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having investigated further, I see you've added a large amount of problematic material to that article, specifically to the Korea section, which I've now removed. These include irrelevant material, mispresentations of sources, non-neutral language, poor writing etc. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are not read this section with deliberation.--Historiographer (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
A solution for Joseon Dynasty?
Hi Historiographer. A few days ago I argued that both versions of Joseon-Korea relations proposed in the RfC were flawed because they left too much unsaid. Then I posted a large number of citations to show how a recent reliable source explained the relationship between Joseon and Ming-Qing China (see this), and finally I proposed a new version that takes into account the best points that supporters of both versions made during the RfC. I think it ends up sounding a lot like what you said about Joseon-China relations in one of your posts in the RfC. It would be great if you could look at the version I propose and say if you would agree to include it in the lede. This way, we could finally end that block and everybody could go back to editing, which would be great! Your comments are also welcome at Doksa sillon, a page I just created. Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I read your reliable source about the true relationship between Korea and China. I agree your version because it has to do with my words, and it is a non-distorion view. Some of Chinese and Japanese users tend to unreasonably denigrate Korea. In this case, They also take advantage of tribute relationship using the Western point though they are non-Western people. So, Despite the practical diplomatic relations I said, I think this discussion is just proceed their designs. However, your intervene in a dispute bring a new phase on this old conflict. I support your argument. Thank you!--Historiographer (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your support, Historiographer. I'm glad that you find my version balanced and well-referenced, and that you have said so at Talk:Joseon Dynasty. When conflicts like this happen, it seems that opposing editors pull so hard in each direction that they forget there can be a center! Actually, the solution is not always in the center. The key is what reliable sources say. In this case, a good scholarly study of Qing-Joseon relations happened to sound like a compromise between the two proposed versions. Recently I've been trying to understand why there are so many conflicts between Korean, Japanese, and Chinese editors on Wikipedia. The historical reasons are obvious, but insufficient. I think points of view differ so drastically because history is written very differently in each country. People grow up learning very different versions of history, and all these versions are in turn different from what English-speaking scholars have said. These conflicting interpretations of the past lead to basic misunderstandings, especially when people are not willing to put them on the table for discussion. Maybe one day I will write a series of wikis on "Nationalist historiography" in Japan, China, and Korea. This way, both readers and editors may understand the roots of all these disputes better, and maybe we will all have a more peaceful experience on Wikipedia. But that's for the future. For now, let's hope that this long dispute on Joseon can finally end. Good editing! Madalibi (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm also glad you made great effort that solution for disputes between three East Asian editors. Thanks a lot for all you've done.--Historiographer (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your support, Historiographer. I'm glad that you find my version balanced and well-referenced, and that you have said so at Talk:Joseon Dynasty. When conflicts like this happen, it seems that opposing editors pull so hard in each direction that they forget there can be a center! Actually, the solution is not always in the center. The key is what reliable sources say. In this case, a good scholarly study of Qing-Joseon relations happened to sound like a compromise between the two proposed versions. Recently I've been trying to understand why there are so many conflicts between Korean, Japanese, and Chinese editors on Wikipedia. The historical reasons are obvious, but insufficient. I think points of view differ so drastically because history is written very differently in each country. People grow up learning very different versions of history, and all these versions are in turn different from what English-speaking scholars have said. These conflicting interpretations of the past lead to basic misunderstandings, especially when people are not willing to put them on the table for discussion. Maybe one day I will write a series of wikis on "Nationalist historiography" in Japan, China, and Korea. This way, both readers and editors may understand the roots of all these disputes better, and maybe we will all have a more peaceful experience on Wikipedia. But that's for the future. For now, let's hope that this long dispute on Joseon can finally end. Good editing! Madalibi (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876
Your edits would be stronger, more effective if you could add an inline citation which supports the text. Why not add your source so that others are encouraged to do the same in future edits to this article? --Tenmei (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring at Joseon Dynasty
You're doing it again. If you disagree about the picture, please participate in the discussion that the other user has already started at the talk page. Simply undoing another user's edit (especially trying to undo it "sneakily", without an edit summary) is inappropriate. Consider this your warning; if you continue edit warring on this topic it will lead to a block. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just one reverting between Pldx1 and I. Take it easy. Don't so sensitive.--Historiographer (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring is edit warring. You know this is a sensitive article and you've already been blocked several times for edit warring on it. I'm just giving you a warning; "don't be so sensitive". rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't called it is not edit warring. If you got unpleasant feeling by my word, that's your measure, but hoped it would not cause disruptions.--Historiographer (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring is disruptive. Please don't do it, especially at that article. Further edit warring will lead to a block. I hope I have made myself clear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't called it is not edit warring. If you got unpleasant feeling by my word, that's your measure, but hoped it would not cause disruptions.--Historiographer (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring is edit warring. You know this is a sensitive article and you've already been blocked several times for edit warring on it. I'm just giving you a warning; "don't be so sensitive". rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised that you did not discuss their behaviour with them on their talk pages before going to ANI. However be that as it may, please read the boxes at the top of ANI, it includes the line:
- "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so."
-- PBS (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, Thank you for your advice..--Historiographer (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Year in Korea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gojoseon and Four Commanderies of Han. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please come to the discussion first. —EJcarter (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Head of government of Korea for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head of government of Korea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
To respectful Historiographer
I'm your fan, World historia. I realized that you are having a hard time because of other bad editors who vandalizes your works. But can you help me? A bad Japanese always vandalizes my edits. I believe you know that feeling. The Japanese vandalizer's name is Kusunose. Please warn this evil guy or just block him. I hope you can edit Korean history template well and defend Kusunose's vandalism. Thank you very much.