User talk:Appleby/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Appleby/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Amren ^(talk) 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean naming coventions

Hello Appleby! long time no talk. Yes, my life has been less stressful of late. Anyways, here is the Korean naming convention article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). That article also has a link to the vote that took place a while back.

As for your question about the names of rivers, well currently (as far as I know) there is no specific naming convention regarding those rivers except the general Wikipedia naming convention that states that the most common English name be used. A quick google search for "Yalu River" minus Wikipedia gets 85,000 hits. "Amnok River" minus Wikipedia gets 503 hits. So, it is not a matter of using the Chinese name, it is a matter of using the English name, which happens to be the Chinese name. It is generally agreed upon in Wikipedia that the English name be used over local names in articles, because...well, this is the English section of Wikipedia. If we were to use local names throughout Wikipedia, it would be very confusing for the average Tom, Dick, and Harry who happened upon Wikipedia. I have been meaning to "fix" those river names, but have never gotten around to it. I have fixed some, but not all. Masterhatch 03:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Google searches are not the best way to determine anything, sometimes they can help. 85,000 hits compared to 503 is a huge difference. Anyways, I feel that for non-disupted names, such as the Yalu River, there is no need to put the Korean name in with it except in the main Yalu artice itself. There is no currrent trend on Wikipedia to include local names every time a place is mentioned in an article or even on every article. There is a trend, though, that on the main article page itself to include local names in a template box and in the introduction. The East Sea is an exception to the trend because there is a real dispute about the name. There is no dispute over the name of the Yalu river or the West Sea (or as the English world calls it, the Yellow Sea) so the local names aren't really needed when those geographical features are mentioned arbitrarly in an article. Only on their main pages is it neccessary to mention the local names.Masterhatch 07:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care if it the local name is occasionally written in brackets behind the english one. I don't think it does any real harm nor does it do any real good either. I do feel it is a bit redundant, though, as all one has to do is click on the Yalu River link and one will see the chinese name, Korean name, and English name. Originally, I reverted that edit on the Korea article because the edit was POV. Putting the local name in front of the English name (in the vast majority of cases) is POV. If you were to add Amnok behind Yalu, I wouldn't care and I don't think anyone else on Wiki would either. Masterhatch 08:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Masterhatch

You have been doing a great job lately with editing. I just wanted to say hello and keep up the good work. Also, I am glad that I have someone else helping revert vandalism as it seems to happen a lot with Korean pages. It is nice knowing that when I see your name come up on an edit on something that is on my watchlist I don't have to check to see if it is vandalism or POV editing. Masterhatch 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been greatly enjoying hockey. And yes, the Korean articles are lacking big-time. There used to be a user by the name of user:Visviva who was very active with the Korean articles and he was doing a great job, but he hasn't been active for a while. over the last several months that I have been involved in Wiki i have seen several people come and go and there used to be more (during the summer) that were actively involved in Korean articles. I think one of the problems is that a lot of people will come onto wiki and try to push their POV and when it fails, they give up and get bored. I hope you stick around as you have been doing a great job. Masterhatch 03:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea - Agreed Framework

Well done in improving the accuracy of several articles re the reasons for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework. However I don't think characterising the Agreed Framwork as "specifically prohibited plutonium enrichment" is the best phrasing. The agreed text just says "replace the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants ... by a target date of 2003", so strictly speaking all ways of producing plutonium were not prohibited, though at a practical level the only method then available to produce large amounts of plutonium was shutdown. But more significantly I think readers should be reminded that the reason U.S. agreed to supply replacement LWRs was that the agreement shutdown North Korea's entire indigenous nuclear power program, not just a pay-off to stop plutonium production, and when it was clear the LWRs would not be provided (and interim oil supply stopped) it was no great surprise the Yongbyon Reactors program was restarted. -- Rwendland 11:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I'm very sorry — the world of work intervened, and I never got to deal with your e-mail. I should put a notice on my user page to warn people that for the next seven weeks there's not much point asking me to do anything.

Incidentally, are you Cheshire, Lincolnshire, or another one? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Paek

Appleby, I assume that your Korean reading is better than mine, so I am asking for some help. I had created a hockey player by the name of Richard Park and I had no problem finding his Korean name. A few minutes ago, I just finished creating the article on the other Korean hockey player, Jim Paek, but I am having trouble finding his real korean name. I keep finding 짐팩 and I am pretty sure that isn't his real Korean name as that literally is "Jim Paek". Do you think you could spare a minute or two and search google or elsewhere for his real Korean name? I would love to add it to the article on wiki. Thanks! Masterhatch 18:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I figured that since all the Russian and French and Polish and Swiss players all had their native language spellings, the two Korean players should too. Masterhatch 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my comments

Don't move my comments around. And especially when I move them back where I put them do not revert me, SqueakBox 06:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is twic. If you touch my comments again I will report you. Desist, SqueakBox 15:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you (again) for violating the 3RR rule on Kim Jong-il. Please stop revert-warring. If you continue, the blocks will get longer. -Splash^talk 19:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong Il

As per your request, I took a look at the happenings on Kim Jong Il, and regret to tell you that I cannot help you in this case. Your request is tainted by lack of good faith, as evidenced by multiple 3RR violations and tampering with notes people leave on this Talk page. I am familiar with the work of the other editors involved in this dispute, and can assure you that none of them is trying to promote his or her own POV. Once you start observing Wikipedia policies, and understand that principle of consensus, I will be happy to intervene on your behalf. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I took too long to get your message. Hotmail is always trashing messages it shouldn't. But yes, I took a look at the article. It's a complicated issue, you know. I do agree that the word "leader" is better because it just sounds more neutral. It doesn't imply anything. A leader is what he is, and nobody can tell otherwise, so I see no real reasons not to use that word. But it seems like other people are against it. I am not favoring any parties here. This is my common sense speaking. A votation would help settling things down. Maybe if you people actually start one, this could be solved.--Kaonashi 04:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the page and see that tempers are running high. It is very easy, in the heat of the moment, to forget WP:3RR or WP:CIV and start making it about the person rather than the edits. I would suggest that everyone, including yourself, step back from it for a moment and let everything cool down before attempting to discuss it again - perhaps the 24 hour block would be good for this reason. My initial suggestion for a solution would not be to characterise him as either leader or ruler, i.e. avoid those words entirely, and to simply state the facts: that he holds such and such a position, and that he is called "Dear Leader" by the citizens of North Korea. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete sections of an article (unless it is clearly a vandals work), please at first discuss why in the discussion page of your opinion the particular part should be deleted, then at the very least try to have some comment in the edit summary of why you deleted it.

Mr. il

I read the Mr. il (that is what "Hans Blix" calls him in the movie "Team American" and i think that is sooooo funny) article. It's a bloody mess i tell ya. I am not sure which way to vote. On one hand, "leader" is by far the most common term used and the Manual of Style says we should use the most common term. One can't also help but agree that "leader" is in fact a more neutral and less POV term. On the other hand, it is the most politically correct term and in today's day and age the media is so afraid of offending anyone that everything is watered down and made politically correct. In one of my text books at school, it said "Sputnik was the first human-made object in space." I nearly s**t myself when i read that yesterday. What's next? "One small step for humans, one giant leap for human-kind". So, it begs the question, is the media using "leader" to be politically correct? To me, he seems to "rule" North Korea as opposed to "lead". To me, when i hear the term leader, a positive image is put into my head. When it comes to Kim jong il, generally, I don't have positive images of him "leading" his people to a better life. But as we all know, not all leaders are good leaders. So, I am kinda sitting on the fence with this issue.

As for the Sea of Japan naming dispute, no I didn't report the guy or talk to anyone about his reverting. Masterhatch 03:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Appleby, I responded to an RFC for the Kim Jong-Il page. I think you should try to accept the compromise Head of government (which even has its own article hooray!). And, I hope none of the guys on the page see this because they sound like the type that would flip out and say its a conspiracy, but I can really relate to your comment that "a small number of people with very strong feelings are monitoring & constantly reverting everyone else's edits to the article." Oh man do I hate that. I don't think it should refer to him as leader though, to me that casts light on the people of North Korea as "being led" rather than "being governed." I mean, I'm sure a lot of them are being led considering the propaganda and such, but I don't think it is appropriate to imply that all are "being led." That's why I don't like it. Ruler to me is way too vague and frankly sounds a little juvenile. It doesn't convey that he even has or is part of a government. I think one of the reasons a lot of the people there don't like leader is partly because of the positive connotations like Masterhatch said, but also because Mr. Il is referred to in propaganda as "Dear Leader," and it is hard to get away from that propaganda reference if you call him a leader yourself. I hope it works out, I'll check in on the talk page. Right now I'm discussing with 172 about calling him the Head of government. I think you just got them all riled up, they got you riled up and now you guys are at odds over something that can solved if you just get at it from a different angle. (But if you're still really attached to calling him the "leader" I don't think I can help you :P).--Ben 11:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your mail

I thank you for your -e-mail pertaining to the use of "ruler" or "leader" in the page relating to Kim Jong-il. I have already sent you my reply that I would look into the matter. Here, I find that the matter has already been discussed in detail on this page, as also on the talk page of the article. I thank that the matter has been resolved for the time being - however, time is dynamic, and so changes may also take palce in the views of people. Cheers and continue to work on other pages. --Bhadani 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Sea of Japan naming dispute. Please try to refrain from edit warring when your block expires, and instead; attempt to garner consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Kim Jong il

Thanks for the note about the poll. I did get a chance to vote. It looks like you guys have a mess on your hands. I'm involved in a similar mess with vandalism and the Dominion of Melchizedek and Bokak Atoll pages. I hope you guys find some consensus. Davidpdx 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi. There has been a request for mediation involving you made at WP:RFM. If you are willing to take part in the mediation, please add your name there or email me at sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language sources for Sushen and Joseon (it is already more than certain that Sushen were the ancestors of Jurchen

http://google.hk/search?q=%22%E8%82%83%E6%85%8E%22+%22%E6%9C%9D%E9%B2%9C%22&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N "肃慎" "朝鲜" http://www.omnitalk.com/omniarch/messages/400.html 《山海经》---------中央帝国的山海之经(5) http://www.nmgnews.com.cn/news/article/20041203/20041203071928_1.html “犬鹿说”构筑中华民族同源一体新框架 http://www.eurasianhistory.com/data/articles/a05/1113.html 夷夏东西说（一） http://www.cass.net.cn/webnew/yanjiusuo/show_News.asp?id='6884' 中国边疆史地研究中心 http://www.fushun.cn/arts/zt/ztmz/ztmz03/12547.shtml “满洲”族名考

Sorry Appleby you won't be able to find English-language scholarly writings on the fast-developing archeological researches done by Korean and Chinese scholars in these couple years. You really have to consult people who speak these languages. English works on the "su-shen" people, if any, are extremely rudimentary and scarce. Scholars from the US and other Western nations that rely heavily on English-language archeological literature are simply NOT INTERESTED IN Korea and ancient Manchuria at all. So much of the Chinese-language historical literature is yet to be tapped. http://google.hk/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22sushen%22+Korean&btnG=Search Sushen continued to pay pilgrimage to Zhou Dynasty later. (Note Sushen's sound is close to Korean pronounciation of 'Choson'. http://www.uglychinese.org/manchurian.htm http://google.hk/search?q=%22su-shen%22+Korean+Manchuria&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr= "su-shen" Korean Manchuria Bestlyriccollection 03:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up the confusion between "Chinese sources" and "Chinese-language sources", let me just say that "chinese-language sources" does not necessarily have a national identity as Chinese. In fact, in the entire Northeast Asian cultural zone as late as early 20th century, literary Chinese LANGUAGE served as lingua-franca in the way Latin was among Western Christian nations including Sweden, Scotland and Poland as late as 17th century, or in the same way Persian was among Afghanistan, Hindustan, Turkistan and Iran in late medieval era. To rely on Latin-language sources on, say, Ireland, doesn't necessarily mean taking an Italian-oriented view on the Celtic world, nor should the study of Persian-language poetry written by European Ottomans necessarily dislocate the student from the historic and geographic contexts of the poets and relocate their focus 2000 miles to the east in the barren plains of Fars. I don't think things written 2000 years ago by ancient historians who lived around the modern day circum-Bohai region in the lingua-franca of the time, observing the lives of indigenous tribes, should necessarily take on the significance of the "perspective from the modern nation state of China on the modern nation states of Korea". Such political caution does more harm to scholarship than service. Bestlyriccollection

Your presumption that the Sushen-Joseon link is a "modern Chinese interpretation" based on the fact that I am a reader of primarily Chinese-language materials is completely unfounded. In fact, the standard ethnocentric Chinese interpretation of the meaning of Joseon is strictly that of "Morning Calm", as ethnocentric Chinese, ancient or modern, presume that the Koreans spoke Chinese in their everyday life and readily adopt an ethnonym Chinese in form and in content. In fact, for "Joseon" to mean "Morning Calm" is very unlikely. It first of all appears awkward in its wording even to the Chinese language, secondly it is known to be false that three different tribes (at least three different cultures/states, ie: Go-, Gija-, Wiman-) of indigenous extraction would choose the same Chinese name to present, or even refer to themselves. It is arrogance on your part to label me as taking a "modern chinese perspective". The current fierce dispute among Chinese and Korean historians isn't even focused on whether Go-, Gija-, Wiman-'s kinsmen were Tungusic, it is focused on "whether Goguryeo/Puyeo would have Chinese or Korean citizenship if they were moderns", a controversy which is entirely meaningless to me. Bestlyriccollection I am no Chinese nationalist and in most cases I contradict Chinese nationalist perspectives on history. In addition, to demand English-language impartiality on the history of a region where Chinese-language has been lingua-franca for thousands of years is impractical, and even implies a colonial mentality.

Still it is within Wikipermissibility that a new theory be brought to awareness, albeit being labeled as POV. At the same time, obsolete but more commonly held interpretation such as "Morning Calm" should be further discredited. To impose a Chinese meaning on an indigenous name such as 朝鲜 was almost inevitable in a time there was only one lingua franca. Imagine in the future when Chinese again becomes the only recognizable Terran language by the remnant of our species, how they would interpret the name of the Tibetan classic of 丹珠尔? It'd be inevitable that it is mistaken to mean "Oh Thou Crimson Pearl". And such misinterpretation would actually be commonly held if Chinese was to be the lingua franca by then. But we know for sure that 丹珠尔 is definitely a Tibetan transliteration and for it to mean "Thou Crimson Pearl" is awkward even to native speakers of Chinese. Hence 朝鲜. Bestlyriccollection

Deleting "Morning Calm" is probably not necessary. Although awkward as it sounds to native Chinese ears, certain historic state on the peninsula (not sure if it was Wiman Joseon or Yee Joseon) did present the name 朝鲜 along with its presummed connotation in the Chinese-language as "Morning Calm"(google "朝日鲜明"). A analogy of this would be the 8th century Uighurs, who, upon adjustic the orthography of the Chinese transliteration of "uighur" from 回纥 to 回鹘, did insist that the orthographic change signified the nation's veneration for falcons circling in the sky (取其...回旋似鹘...之义). However, modern students of history and ethnology are under no illusion that the medieval Turkic nation named itself after a purely Chinese-language construction. Judging from the existence of the name "Asadal", some ancient tribes of the Korean peninsula did have certain veneration for calm mornings. "Asa" is identical with the Japanese word for "morning", suggesting that the tribe named "Asadal" is most likely Puyeoic/Goguryeo, akin to the Japonics, or at least named such by a Puyeoic-speaking neighbor. However, the theory that "Asadal" was translated into 朝鲜 and for a long time pronounced according to its indigenous kunyomi instead of the onyomi resembling "Joseon" is yet to be backed up by evidence. 朝鲜, to be sure, looks quite awkward a construction for a native speaker of Chinese. I suggest keeping the historical allusion that 朝鲜 meant "Morning Calm" in Chinese while cautioning that this was most likely just a CONNOTATION TO THE TRANSLITERATION similar to 回鹘(Circling Falcon) Bestlyriccollection

"Korea" in the Jurchen Jin's national language (Jurchen) is "Sogo" while in Mongolian is "Sorongus". These two names are most likely derived from a Silla etymology, as opposed to one belonging to a Puyeoic or Tungusic tribe. By using "Sogo" and "Sorongus", the Jurchens and Mongolians conferred entitlement of the peninsula on the Han-Silla tribe in the south, rather than on the Puyeoic tribes in the North and in southern Manchuria. This is interesting because now, by using the name "Korea", the modern West actually privileges the Puyeoic heritage of the peninsula. Bestlyriccollection Sogo, Sorongus, Sara, Silla, Han; Kaya, Imna (Imra), Mimana; Buyeo, Goguryeo, E-mak, Balhae, Wu-huan, Baekje, Kudara, Goryeo, Taebong, Majin; Nangnang (Rakrang), Hyeonto; Joseon, Asadal. There are so many names associated with peoples on the peninsula and southern Manchuria! Ethnic diversity in the process of the peopling of Korea is such a fascinating topic.

According to recent genom research, the continental elements of the genes of the Japanese is closest, more than anyone else, to the Buryat Mongols near Lake Baikal. If the "-t" ending in "Buryat" is merely a plural indicator in the Mongolian language, then it's striking that this tribe still maintains the ancient ethnonym "Burya", remarkably close to "Buyeo", the continental ancestors of the Japonics according to Jared Diamond's "Buyeo-Yayoi" theory and the "Kudara Horseriders" theory. Bestlyriccollection

Request for mediation

Hi, I've filed a request for mediation regarding the dispute you're having with Kamosuke. I have no opinion on whether either of you is "right" or either of you is "wrong," but I would like to see the dispute resolved. If you wish to comment there, please do so. --Nlu 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate here whether you are interested in mediation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korea now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

korean name boxes

I think we should get rid of the boxes, since they make formatting some articles difficult, and use the "parentheses version" instead, similar to Chinese- and Japanese-related articles. --68.78.148.9 00:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean

Hi.

First Reply: Deleting seo taeji was a mistake. If Boa can stay in the list, why not Shin Hye Sung and Moon Hee Jun?

(feel free to add appropriately)

2nd Reply: 06:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Then why are you deleting Lee min woo, Shin Hye Sung and Moon Hee Jun?

Gyeolmyeongja

Thanks for the quick assistance with this! Badagnani 05:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi Appleby,

I think it might help the mediators understand better if you mention in your request for mediation that Hanja is the Chinese characters used in Korean, because not everyone else knows what Hanja is. I don't think I should edit what you've written though.

Thanks for your active participation with the Hanja discussion so far.

KittySaturn 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanja article

Hello again,

I was editing the Hanja article only because I happened to come across information about Hanja. I was actually trying to make sure that the article still gives the impression that North Korea does not use Hanja, despite the education and the dictionary. If you think the article still sounds like it misleads people into thinking that North Korea still uses a little Hanja, please feel free to edit it so that it does not. In particular, I was not editing the article with the intention to then use the information to back my point in our Hanja discussion. If you think what I added could affect the discussion, do you think I can comment it out temporarily (until this Hanja discussion is done) instead of deleting it altogether? I think the information is still interesting. -- KittySaturn 08:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update from me (08:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)): I've commented out what I added (and another half sentence that was in the middle of everything). Do you think that's okay now? By the way, about the Chinese speakers thing, from other people's user pages, I don't think any of them know many Chinese characters at all. -- KittySaturn

Kim Daejung move

this name is spelled either Kim Dae Jung or Kim Dae-jung by top newspapers, but not Kim Daejung. i tried to revert User:§'s move to Daejung, but maybe i didn't do it right. [1] & pre-2001 [2] Appleby 08:30, 23. Dez 2005 (CET)

Thanks for your message. You should do moves only by using the move function, otherwise the history will be broken and the attributors arn't mentioned correctly anymore as required by the GFDL. I agree, Kim Daejung should be moved to Kim Dae-jung, but it has to be conform with the lisence. Since the article can't be moved by an ordenary user like you and me (because the page Kim Dae-jung already exists), you should request an move by an administrator. I'm seldom on the en wikipedia, otherwise I would have done it myself. Regards, IGEL 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GOJOSEON EDITS, ETC

HI! I was sorry to change your fine work. Why don't we add in the concerns that you list here in your article as a way to explain the important issues that you mention. Please do not be upset, but distributions of artifacts, even if they are bronze daggers, do not make a "state" or even a polity. Yoon Nae-hyeon, the scholar who popularized the "existence" of Gojoseon, is a well-known ultra-nationalist and many feel that he greatly twisted the evidence. Secondly, historians use 0 AD as the start of state-level societies, but there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of this. Most English books on Korean history are extremely old and frightenly out of date -- they don't even teach that in Korean middle schools anymore. Archaeological evidence suggests that state-level societies formed in the 3rd century AD.

I apologize but I am of the view that historical Chinese texts were first written through third- or fourth-hand sources by scribes who lived far far away from Korea. We need to be very careful with the content from these sources. I don't think it is advisable to present material from the two ancient Korean texts as "truth" because even professional Korean historians would never do that. We should reflect the current state of the disciplines of archaeology and history. I intend to add as citations as possible to strengthen these arguments, but very little is written in English. I guess I have to find out if Korean sources are acceptable for English articles in Wikipedia, though. I am in agreement with your aims here and I hope you will not take this as a slight. Korea is an important country and we carry great responsibility to present this to readers. Thank you very much for doing this and I hope we can talk often ^^. 수고하세요! Mumun 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding South Korean ban and its lifting

This article gives me the impression that Japanese entertainment exploded in popularity in South Korea when it was allowed - http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/entertainment/01/10/japan.korea/index.html

Japanese entertainment is unpopular... with the old people. The young people are hooked onto Japanese entertainment. WhisperToMe 02:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for violating the 3RR on East Sea (disambiguation). I recall blocking you several times before for 3RR problems on broadly the same topic, so this time, it's 48 hours. As I've commented at the bottom of WP:AN3, I think Nlu is wrong to be rolling you back as a vandal, when clearly that's not what you're being. -Splash^talk 06:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war with Endroit

I don't know what is going on with you two, but cut it out. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked you (Appleby) for 72 hours for being a serial violator of the rule against reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period found here. Please stop this crusade. Nobody should be edit warring, not you, Nlu, Endroit or anybody else. But if you're constantly falling afoul of the three-revert rule, that probably means that consensus isn't on your side. Continuing to edit war and getting blocked for it isn't going to get you anywhere. I encourage you to use the talk page to try to come to a consensus that's amenable to all parties. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Appleby. When you return from the block, please be sure to follow WP:CIV. If you wish to conduct a widespread Wikipedia:Poll, please discuss it first at the Talk:Sea of Japan page so that we can determine the conditions of the poll together (such as the closing date, etc.). Otherwise, please realize where the concensus lies.

If you proceed to Wikipedia:Edit war again or request WP:Mediation, I will request WP:Arb immediately. Or we can head straight to WP:Arb. The choice is yours. Sorry, I really have no choice on this, because admin Katefan0 and others have said they don't want me participating in Wikipedia:Edit war either. If you are in danger of being against concensus again, please be sure to discuss everything and wait before editing.--Endroit 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo external list

Dear Appleby, I have noticed you deleted the Sangrok link I placed in the external links of taekwondo. I would like to know the reasons. Sangrok academy is really a great place for taekwondo and I feel that by leaving it in the list it's giving the possibility to Taekwondo people around the world to come to korea and train under a grandmaster that actually speaks english living really an unique experience. I did it and considering it took six months searching the web to find a place such as sangrok academy I feel that putting on the link I'm making life much more esay for somebody like me who wants to get in korea to learn Taekwondo from it's orgins. Thanks Rog

Dear Applebay, thanks for the fast answer. I can understand your concern about commercials sites. But sangrok can be everything but a commercial site. The aim of the website is not to lure ords of students for earning money, it's not TKD tour with two hours of lessons and after an honorific black belt! It's aim is to promote taekwondo giving people the possibility to learn it in Korea as live-in student when you want and how long you want, under a grandmaster who can speak english and improve your taekwondo in incredible ways. And I'm pretty sure it's the only place like this in Korea. I'm certainly not doing it for commercial reasons, I live in Italy and Korea is very far away, but having tried the experience and being a black belt myself I believe it's very important to "spread the word" as much as possible because Sangrok is "Taekwondo" as it should be. After all his motto is “Taekwondo is Taekwondo, Makegeolli is Makegeolli!”. Please let me know your opinion about it, maybe taking five minutes to have a look to the web site(sangrokgym.com), trying to see it from the point of view of a Taekwondo practitioner. Thanks Rog

page moves

ex: Samsung & Samsung Group

Chun Doo-hwan --70.131.40.65 06:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocke for 3rr on East Sea (disambiguation)

I've blocked you [3] for 3rr on East Sea (disambiguation). ~~To point out what should be obvious: removing the previous notices of 3rr blocks doesn't help your cause at all; it is Uncool~~. William M. Connolley 13:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm. This isn't my day for "removing previous notices" - you're right, I got it wrong. In recognition of that, I'll shorten the block from 72 to 48h; but please lay off the 3rr'ing. William M. Connolley 18:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

RfM on East Sea, &c.

User:Endroit has filed a RfM, in case you weren't aware. If you want to be involved, please take a look. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RfM (Request for Mediation) has been filed, titled East Sea (disambiguation) and related pages. The {{RFM-Filed}} tag (section) below is meant to specify that you are an involved party.

Please respond by marking "Agree" or "Do not agree" in the section titled Parties' agreement to mediate, and signing your name with four tildes ~~~~. If you agree to mediate, please add any issues that have not yet been included to the section marked Additional issues to mediate.--Endroit 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) and related pages, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) has been accepted by the Mediation Committee; mediation will begin on that page as soon as a mediator is assigned. Mediators are generally given several days to review and volunteer on cases which they feel particularly suited to mediate; if no mediator volunteers to take the case, one will be assigned. Please pay careful attention to the mediation subpage, as further communication from the Committee will occur there. (Adding that page to your watchlist would be very helpful.)

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-modern Korean intellectuals

I see that you have a strong interest in Korean history. I've already mentioned this to User:Deiaemeth, but there seems to be a dearth of articles about intellectuals and intellectual thought in pre-modern East Asia. Do you know anyone who would be interested in adding articles on people like Yi Su-gwang, Hong Tae-Yong and other greats in the history of Korean thought? I notice that Korean_philosophy has several headings without any content whatsoever (Neo-Confucian philosophers, Confucian philosophers). For Buddhist philosophers there is a whole list of philosophers but very few with their own articles. Perhaps all this seems esoteric, but my personal feeling is that these huge blanks need to be filled in to do justice to the history of countries such as Korea. What do you think? Bathrobe 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Liaoning bronze...' article looks good ^^

Hi Appleby Thanks for your recent note. I looked at the article that you mentioned (Liaoning bronze dagger culture) and I think it looks good. It is easy to read and covers the major issues well. I can see that maybe some of the relevant sites in the Liao River Basin with the violin-shaped daggers could be played up a bit (Kang-shang, Luo-shang, etc). Also, it was my impression that the general consensus was that 'slender dagger culture' was a separate phenomena -- chiefly because the slender daggers come later and were likely produced in the Korean Peninsula.

One of our main challenges is that, although a lot of this is published in Korean, my understanding of the Wikipedia rules are that we are not supposed to cite non-English academic publications. This leaves us in the lurch because of the small number of English-language publications. A lot of the publications are old. I see that somebody anonymously commented on the article's talk page that the "use of Lee (1984)" was in some way objectionable. I don't know what 'walled town' is either -- perhaps archaeologists would interpret Lee's terminology in a different way ('chiefdoms'?). But I really hope nobody out there thinks that "archaeological evidence trumps historical evidence" (!). What a scary thought -- of course these two kinds of data are different sides of the same coin and are inherently equal. However, it seems that the article uses a 1996 publication by Lee Chung-kyu, who is an good, able, and respectable scholar from Yeungnam University. If it was acceptable to use Korean sources, someone could mention a number of recent spectacular finds that link Liaoning Bronze Dagger Culture with emerging chiefdoms, 'monumental architecture', southern-style megalithic cemeteries with high-ranking burials, and Songggung-ni-style or Middle Mumun Pottery Period Culture. For example, at Igeum-dong in Samcheonpo, Gyeongsang Nam-do, two massive raised-floor buildings (33X12m, 29X6m) were constructed beside a circa 1 km long megalithic cemetery of southern-style megalithic burials and stone cists connected by 'platforms' composed of several layers of river cobbles. Liaoning-style bronzes (2) were found in the burials along with hundreds of tubular jades. Middle Mumun Pottery Period pit-houses were found clustered around the large raised-floor buildings. I heard one English-speaking archaeologist call Igeum-dong a full-blown ceremonial and political centre in the same mould as Yoshinogari in Japan. However, Igeum-dong dates to between 700-500 B.C., some 400-500 years earlier than Yoshinogari! The site was excavated by the Gyeongnam Archaeological Institute and they used to have the published site report (from 2003, Korean only) available for download as a PDF file on their website ([4]). However, I know of only one paper where this stuff is described in English, but it is a conference paper and thus was not published. Nobody who writes for the Korean language Wikipedia has written about this either. Cheers, 건강하고 수고하세요 에플비씨 ! Mumun 15:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi again, Appleby. you let me know about wikipedia style in regards to titles on the Mumun pottery period article talk page. i want to change the titles as you suggested. i am embarrassed to admit it -- I couldn't find a way to edit the name of the article itself. could you suggest how to do this? peace, Mumun 16:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thank-you note for your excellent job on History of Korea related articles

Appleby, thank you for your relentless job in expanding many Korea-related and History of Korea-related articles. Some articles have been in dire need of expansion, and I think you are doing a very fine job at it. Keep up your good work, and have a nice day! Deiaemeth 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info boxes and Romanization

Hi Appleby, thanks for your kind comments. I enjoy your articles on Korea and glad to see you're out there making Korean history more accessible. I'm impressed by the amount of work you seem able to put into it. I'm just the occassional dabbler. My current goal is to go through the Goguryeo kings and make entries on each, some of course will need more effort than others. I'm using as my source primarily the Samguk Sagi. I'd be happy to include the bio box you suggest but will simply use the template you created for Yeong'yang and place it in future entries since I haven't gotten around to figure out how to make tables (which reminds me, another thing I think is needed is a chart/table showing the Silla ranking system). About romanization. I'm coming from more of an academic background so I'm adjusting to the RR. My apologies for the Yeong'yang. In looking over the revised romanization guidelines I see your hunch was right, they do not use apostrophes. However, they do suggest separting by a hyphen those syllables that placed together might cause confusion. Which means it should read Yeong-yang. I will have to work on setting that right and redirecting. Meanwhile I'll be working on King Yeongnyu. See you around!

Straitgate 18:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Part of Korean history" (Manchuria)

I don't understand what you're trying to do. What exactly does this sentence mean anyways?

Let's try a few analogous examples:

"Western Germany was at this time ruled by Charlemagne, which is usually described as a part of French history."
"Most of Turkey was ruled by the Byzantine Empire, usually described as a part of Greek history."
"Egypt was then conquered by the Persian Empire, usually described as a part of Iranian history."

Do you see how POV it is to make such statements? The Byzantine Empire ruled a very large area, so it is part of the history of all of the places it once ruled. The fact that we use a Greek word to call it means nothing; if we used a Slavic or Turkic name instead, it would still be part of the history of all of the places it once ruled.

In short, don't try to fit ancient states into modern boxes. Like the rest of the world, East Asia was a jumble of ethnic groups and histories, and the modern entities of "China", "Japan", "Korea" etc. only emerged at the end of it. To make a statement like "part of Korean history" about Bohai, etc. is petty and illogical. -- ran (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted again, why did you not discuss?

Do you realize the problem with your logic? For example, the Byzantine Empire is a part of Greece's history. This is obvious. If I go to a page on the "history of Greece", I would expect to find information on the Byzantine Empire. But the Byzantine empire is also a part of the history of many other places: the remainder of the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt, etc. If I go out and say, "Egypt was a part of the Byzantine Empire which was a part of Greek history", that's fundamentally a strange statement, because as long as we're talking about the Byzantine Empire's activities in Egypt, then we're talking about the history of Egypt, and how it interacted with the history of Greece and all of the other places in the Byzantine Empire. In fact, if, say, someone inserted the line, "Cyprus, Turkey, the Levant, and Egypt were all part of the Byzantine Empire, which was a part of Greek history", based on the fact that he found a description of the Byzantine Empire in a history of Greece, I can only conclude that this person is a Greek nationalist who appears to have irredentist tendencies towards the entire Near East. Wouldn't you agree?

And so, the same with the Manchuria page. The fact that Goguryeo and Pohai are described as a part of a history of Korea means nothing -- of course they're a part of the history of Korea, they ruled over parts of Korea during that time. But they also ruled other parts outside Korea -- namely, Manchuria and the Russian Far East. To say that the history of Goguryeo and Pohai are a "part of the history of Korea", on a page that is about the history of Manchuria, is a very curious, if not self-contradictory statement to make. Because Goguryeo and Pohai were ancient cultures and states that spanned this entire area, their histories and cultures are entwined with the entire area. In other words, everything is a part of everything, so to speak. To exclusively claim some sort of "sovereignty" over multiethnic, border-spanning empires 1,000 years ago for another, different pair of states that exist today is not just strange -- it is also suspiciously irredentist and blatantly POV.

Also, I'm wondering why Fuyu, a state that existed in northern Manchuria, is being rendered in Korean. -- ran (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation)

I'm offering to take on this mediation. Please note that I am not yet a member of the mediation committee and am under trial. If you are happy for me to mediate please email me using Subject:"East sea mediation", a summary of your view of the issue. MyNameIsNotBob 10:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I add a section "Nlu's views" under your current user space page User:Appleby/Sea? --Nlu (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hi Appleby. I got an account. I've been working on pages like Horyu-ji, Kokkok, Magatama, Jomon, Japanese Paleolithic, History of Japan, and of course Yayoi. If you could look at Kokkok, I would appreciate it. Anyways, thanks for the warm welcome.

Opps. Forgot my signature. Also, what do you think about pictures in History of Korea? I saw that you began putting them on there. What exactly is the fair use policy? Also, wanted to tell you thank you for all your hard work. Tortfeasor 05:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added stuff to Korean Arguments on Yamato (atrocious title). Let me know if you have any input. Tortfeasor 09:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey appleby, can you send me a way to access Britannica? thanks Tortfeasor 03:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yayoi, again... Problems as always. Would appreciate any feedback if you get a chance. Tortfeasor 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy: I had a question and I didn't want to mess it up so I just wanted to point it to your attention. There is a picture in the Baekje article, but the image, at least of the man, is Silla wear, as far as I can tell. Thanks. Tortfeasor 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Korea

I do not know what's the problem, I have cited the quotes that suggests a coexistence between Dangun and Gija Lines in Gojoseon from 12th Century BCE. Why don't you read the original quotes, especially the one from Samguk Yusa before reverting what I consider to be quite a legitimate information?---Sydneyphoenix: 08:43 10 March 2006

East Sea

Thanks for writing. I knew no details of this conflict when I made the page move, which was carried out solely because the page was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. That being said, I am a trademark lawyer, and one principal of trademark law is that generic geographic indicators (like West Coast, or River Valley) can not be protected unless they are fairly universally seen as representing a single product. East Sea would be so classified, and although old books and maps can indicate the primary meaning as it once was, the dominance of this meaning must remain constant. In short, to me, East Sea is just a pretty obvious disambig page, and my view counts here precisely because I have no prior experience to push my view towards a particular interpretation. BD2412 T 14:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

일본해는 일본해입니다. 국제적으로 인정된 이름을 바꾸지 마세요.--H.L.LEE 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean food picture touch up

Hi Appleby. I cleaned up and touched up the samgyeopsal and dolsot bibimbap photos in the Korean cuisine article. Since you were the original poster of these pics, I wanted to ask your permission to upload the newer ones. Zenpickle 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thanks for the useful tips.

I will try my best to keep up with wikistandards, although i must admit i'm rather new to this whole thing.

As for the article relating to 코리아말, of course. This is an open encyclopaedia. Feel free to correct me if you feel any of my work is inaccurate or far-fetched. I'd actually appreciate if you did the work for me. :D Mikhail Koh 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

I'm also trying to expand the sections on Korean Mythology. I could use some help though.Mikhail Koh 17:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of korea

Please check Talk:Names of Korea#Korea VS Corea. As I wrote, please add the evidense that that Japan had changed the spelling, if exist.--Mochi 17:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prove:

"Something exists.",
"Something does not exist.".

These look similar, but the latter is far difficult. If one insist "Osama bin Laden exists someshere", it is simple to prove, just showing Osama. While if one insist "Osama bin Laden doesn't exist anywhere", how can one prove? He've not been discovered.

This is same as our problem. you have to show the evidence, or I will write again "There are no evidence discovered". The Burden of proof is on you.--Mochi 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Names of Korea#Korea VS Corea before putting your quote from L.A.Times again. I believe my description "The British government laid the cornerstone of its embassy in Seoul in 1890 with the name "Corea." However, the Korean government used "Korea" in 1895, which was before the ocupation. There are a lot of theories for both sides and the truth remains unknown" contains no POV and there is no problem.--Michael Friedrich 07:38, 03 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]