User:Historiographer/archive3

Re:

Hi, I read your message, but I think you would better consult your thought on the content with editors at the talk page of Liancourt Rocks, or visit User:Lexico who actively has been editing the article. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ye

Image:History of Korea-001.png Could you let me know what the "Ye" is on this map? How come there is no article about it on wikipedia and on the internet? Zxcvmew (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ye" (예, 濊) was a ancient korean tribe located in present Gangwon region. The most of western article did not appear this tribe. but "Ye" was included in the Korean historical maps. Seeing my source.

--Historiographer (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find your source. How is "Ye" related to or different from "Dongye"? Zxcvmew (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dongye and Ye was a same tribe. But as if present korean divided north and south, Dongye and Ye was different organization.--Historiographer (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Changdeok-gung.JPG

Image:Changdeok-gung.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Korea-Seoul-Changdeokgung-31.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Korea-Seoul-Changdeokgung-31.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits - sources and edit summaries

Hello Historiographer. I've just reverted your edits on Ancient history. Two major reasons.

First, you are adding on a regular basis text which is not accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE (and probably WP:OR. These are vital parts of being a good editor, and you should not be surprised to see unsourced additions reverted. You really need to go back through your edits and add sources.

Secondly, you really, really need to use Edit summaries. Again, it's what we expect of good editors. Set your preferences to nag you, that's what I did. Don't take this badly, please, you appear to be a good serious editor but you will be an even better one if you follow these policies and guidelines. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok! I prepare it.--Historiographer (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. I have a nephew who has spent a lot of time in Korea, he is a photographer and journalist. Doug Weller (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? He interest in Korean culture? --Historiographer (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gogureyo-Tang war maps

Hello Historiographer,

1. I have a scan of the 660-668 Tang campaigns against Gogureyo. Please provide me your email address, then I will be able to send you the scan by email.

2. Kumo Xi (see article and sources) and Xi people seems to be the same group, Kumo Xi are called "Xi" since the Sui dynasty, and are most of time West of Khitans. (see your maps: 830;646;901;903)

3. I strongly encourage you to upload your maps on commons (Commons:Upload). Allowing the French, Korean, German wikipedia to use your maps ;)

Thanks for all your maps ! Yug (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I thank your encourage from the bottom of my heart.

660-668 attack : For the map of 660-668 Tang campaigns against Gogureyo is very old version. Old and Currently my maps are difficult both a style of penmanship and border etc.

Xi ? : also Xi (奚, Later first called "Kumo Xi") and Xi(習) were separated tribes. However, In those days, I don't know Xi(奚) was called "Kumo Xi" and I will editing my wrong maps. Thanks --Historiographer (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)\

660-668 attack : you didn't made this map yet, but I provided you [using email] one good source to create it ;)

Xi: for sure, Kumoxi 庫莫奚 = Xi 奚 , we have Kumoxi 庫莫奚 before the Sui, and then since the Sui (581-618) they are named Xi 奚 . 奚 (previously called "Kumo Xi") and Xi(習) were separated people...

"Xi" (習): oh.... ok, I was not aware about the existence of an other "Xi" (習) people in the area. Funny... Have you some information on the Xi (習) , it may be need to create an article to understand who is who.

Thanks again for your work.

Yug (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Xi" (習): Unfortunately, I'm just know that the name of the "Xi"(習), but "Xi (習)" and "Kumo Xi (庫莫奚)" were clearly different tribes. Also in the north of Liaoxi(遼西), Many nomadic tribes were existed such as Two "Xi" peoples, Shiwei(室韋) peoples and Khitan peoples and so on.

I didn't have an arrow shape in adobe photoshop 9.0. So I made imperfectly a map of the first Goguryeo-Tang war. Do you provide some shape to me? If you use another program, please explain using your program. --Historiographer (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: we are here talking about "barbarians". Most of times, barbarians names (such 庫莫奚) were the sound "Kumoxi", that used barbarians for themselves. In Chinese sources, this sound can have several chinese characters. So, it's possible that Xi (sound Xi for Xi people) = 奚 (in some sources) = 習 (in some other sources).

The SVG file I provided to you also have some arrows and tools ;), etc. You can open and edit it using Inkscape.

1. Have you Inkscape ?

2. want you advices to use it ?

Yug 13:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The two barbarians's sound is very similar in chinese character. However Koreans are called Two barbarians as 奚 (Hangul:해, Hae) and 習 (Hangul:습, Seup). And I don't know Inkscape at all until you inform to me. I'm get ready at Saturday, Sunday time to your useful advices. On ordinary days, But I have no time for editing. It's very sad ㅠ.ㅠ --Historiographer (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Oh, ok. 해 and 습 are really different... yes, So... We have to look at them as 2 different groups until we know more.

(2) I sent you an email, to give you a 1st exercise with SVG and Inkscape. Try it when you can.

(3) I also want to notice to you that the Korean user commons:user:Ksiom seems interested to make Korean maps too.

Have a nice day,

Yug (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. also I don't know how to do using Inkscape, but I'll do it with other language maps. Thanks! --Historiographer (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

conventional name

I created a new section about conventional name in Talk:Korea under Japanese rule.--Bukubku (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert the change in Wiman of Gojoseon

Hey, why did you revert the consoleman's undo from Japanese nationalist? Consoleman was trying to revert Japanese nationalist trying to stop Weiman from r-directing to Wiman of Gojoseon. Wiman of Gojoseon is the correct maina article, so Wei man should be redirecting.--Korsentry 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Because it was wrong edit. Of course Japanese user edit not proper. I'm just conform to article forms. --Historiographer (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

stop campaigning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

your requests for help are not neutral, please cease immediately. we are trying to get a balanced view on what is best, we are not trying to contact people and make their minds up for them.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that. Ok I See.--Historiographer (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem, this issue was always going to attract people with differing views anyway.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

nice to meet you, Ph.

Ph, I'm Kys951. About Empress Myeongseong, Fighting(Konglish)! And I wish your administrator election has good ending. --Kys951 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Your encouragement for me. I will unremitting efforts about distort of the Korean related articles. --Historiographer (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wei_Man#Survey Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Kuebie (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Historiographer, I've created another move proposal this time with the argument that Wiman is the prefered name in English sources. Your comments would be welcomed. Kuebie (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that wiman was certainly korean people. Even though he immigrate into the Yan. --Historiographer (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

your blanking

Current your blanking are not rational. Please, explain. I think you have some rationals than others. Now you are strong opposing to changing Empress to Queen. I know there are some opinions like yours. However, other pages are unrelated to the issue. Please, don't blank--Bukubku (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku, I was more of disappointed to you. Why do you changed the title of Empress? Please, It is not --Historiographer (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because, this is English Wikipedia. Most sources are writen as Queen. I don't care about Korean Wikipedia is writen as Empress. And about other articles, before she was granted her posthumous name should be writen as Queen. If she was Empress, Korean status was independent. This is very important for Chinese, Russiaa and Japanese histories.--Bukubku (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But, Most of Wikipedia used title as Empress Myeongseong. Also only Japanese Wikipedia used title as Queen Min. Therefore, Your claimed that "Korean Wikipedia is writen as Empress" was not. --Historiographer (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

She is local person. So other Wikipedias were just translated English into others.--Bukubku (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, She is local person. So, We should be used title as Empress Myeongseong. Because, It is called name to local people(Koreans).--Historiographer (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete massive contents. You can add your contents. And her name issue is another.--Bukubku (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Explain your deletation of Sukjong of Joseon's posthumous name.--Bukubku (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ‎

First of all, We should talk about this articles. This is just arouse a controversy. --Historiographer (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sukjong of Joseon's posthumous name was just had given by Qing Dynasty. King of Korea was not used this name for official.--Historiographer (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your supplied maps of ancient states of east Asia

Quick question for you, why did you used all these maps containing Chinese sounding names for non-Chinese tribes & states? Aren't these long gone states deserved original titles? (For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balhae-Territory_in_830.JPG)

Shiwei & Heishui Mohe???? All of them are clearly Not Chinese tribes, yet you used the map containing Chinese titles of them? --Korsentry 05:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Unavoidably, Many Mongolian-Manchurian Tribes language is a dead it. We are not knowing what them used a language. Also Their descendants probably living in China. Your excessive Korean nationalism is very feel unwell to me.--Historiographer (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of 3RR rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Empress Myeongseong. Note that the WP:three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it. Thanks to your advise for me. --Historiographer (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I reported your 3RR violation to Administrator. See WP:AN3.--NAZONAZO (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Empress Myeongseong. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

History of Joseon Dynasty was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Please don't revert any more. ADKTE (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You have reverted on Joseon Dynasty many time. If you revert again, you will be blocked. ADKTE (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This amounts to a threat. You are not Administrators. You also don't more revert Joseon Dynasty. This articles are point of view by Bukubku. Caspian blue already point out it. --Historiographer (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

Hi Historiographer. This message is regarding a recent 3RR report regarding yourself. I agree that you have not breached 3RR here on Joseon Dynasty, and have dismissed the report. I note that you did make two reversions in succession on the article. As a reminder, even if you believe your edits are correct on a non-BLP article, the appropriate thing to do is not to revert other editors repeatedly on an article -- it's always best to relent and discuss on the talk page. Thank you -- Samir 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see it. thanks to your advise and explanations.--Historiographer (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

History atlas

Hi Historiographer,

Welcome at our project. At the moment there doesn't seem to be much going on, but actually, there has been some email contact in the past month, between me, Daan from Holland, Tibor from Slovakia and Antti from Finland. Tibor is a programmer and i have graduated in history. I know little of programming, but Antti knows some of it. Of course, there will be something for you to do as well.Daanschr (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Daan, I from South Korea and I am passed the qualifying examination of Korean history. I always considered that is wrong map of East Asia, which is an exaggeration chinese territory such as part of various map as Four Commanderies of Han. Anyway like a brick doing my work. Thanks --Historiographer (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tibor told me he was busy for the coming months and Antti didn't respond yet. It would be good to make some sort of planning for the atlas. My main purpose with the planning is to keep a group of people interested to build up a history atlas and when we got enough people to become active, than we can actually make it. Maybe a chat session would be good. We could chat on Wikipedia chat.Daanschr (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also assist you to make historical atlas plan. However, I just know that historical atlas of East Asia. --Historiographer (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. I live in the neighbourhood of the Dutch Royal Library, which has some 50 atlases of all regions in the world. I will write some texts on the project page, but i am having the flu at the moment, so i don't know when i will be finished. Do you like to join a chat session, and if yes, when are you available for it?Daanschr (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Antti said that we can better wait for Tibor who is programming for the map. Maybe we can make some maps in the meanwhile, which can be copied into the program. A chat session isn't necessary, we can also edit a little on the project talk page.Daanschr (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I also contributes about making maps, especially, part of the East Asia. --Historiographer (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Historiographer. You are very welcome the project! About making maps: We are going to make the maps as vector/coordinate based, NOT jpg/bmp/png style images. So, if you and Daan are going to make maps in the near future, be sure that there is some methods to get the coordinate points as text somehow (now that our software system is not yet done, the actual format of the map data in unknown at this point and ability to get text is most convertible to future formats). But, to prevent your page to become discussion board, let's continue in email/project page etc. Skylarque (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool

Hi there, I've seen that you just created Template:History of Vietnam in Korean wikipedia, did you copy form of the template from Simple English wikipedia? 207.233.68.119 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, It's a translation product from Simple English wikipedia, but some of contents are added.--Historiographer (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Sennen goroshi again

Hello, Historiographer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Caspian blue 01:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeonguijeong

Hey, I want to ask your opinion. I created the article of Yeounguijeong, but I'm not sure we should keep this article at the current transliterated name. Because somebody already created "Six Ministries of Joseon" instead of Yukjo, "State Council of Joseon" instead of Uijeongbu. The post can be translated into "Chief State Councilor" or "Prime Minister" in English according to Lee Ki-Baik's book "A New History of Korea" and other sources. I'm not sure which choice would be good; changing all names of the other two articles to Yukjo and Uijeongbu (Council), or just change the Yeonguijeong to "Chief State Councilor". What do you think about this naming? You can talk to me in Korean if you think that would be easier to discuss with me. Also can you finish the chronicles of Yeonguijeong? Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Yeonguijeong should be translated into "Prime Minister of Joseon Dynasty". and currently, I am searching List of Yeonguijeong in Korean Wikipedia. However, It is very difficult, so this searching is may be spending long time. --Historiographer (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Uijeongbu is "State Council of Joseon Dynasty", so I think we need to "unify" terms. I can't find as many sources on Jwauijeong and Uijeong as Yeonguijeong, but can you also create articles on them in Korean wikipedia? They are just equally translated into "High State Councilor" in English even though Jwauijeong is higher than Uijeong in rank. Do you think I should just create one article of "High State Councilors of Joseon" which combine Jwauijeong and Uijeong altogether if we go by English names? Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm... Jwauijeong and Uijeong is clearly different. I mean it is different appear on the Korean Wikipedia (, ). Therefore, I think its name should be translated into "Second Minister, Third Minister". Thanks. --Historiographer (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "ministers" were designated for "Yukjo" (Six Ministers), so the second and third minister are not quite right for the terms. I think we have to go by "Chief State Council" for Yeonguijeong, "(Left/or Second) High State Council" for Jwauijeong, and "Right/or Third) High State Council for Uijeong. This translation is very tricky...--Caspian blue 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So then, I also same your opinion, which is translated for "Second/Third High State Council". --Historiographer (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:37 BCE establishments

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:37 BCE establishments, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:37 BCE establishments has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:37 BCE establishments, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

18 Pumgye

Hi, Historiographer, do you have any idea as to how to translate "18 pumgye" (18품계) of Goryeo and Joseon? I can't find a proper translation on the subject except just one case from James B. Palais, Politics and Ploicy in Traditional Korea and a Korean-English dictionary. The author translates jeong 2 pum (正二品) into rank 2A[1] and jong 2 pum (從二品) into rank 2B[2]. On the other hand, my Korean-English dictionary translates jong 2 pum (正二品) into junior grade of 2th rank. I think those are terrible translations unable to convey the meaning and the system. I think 18품계 can be translated into "18 grades system". or "18 ranks system (of Joseon)". Could you tell your opinion? Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is very hardly topic. Then, I think that "18 ranks system" is better than "18 grades system". Um... --Historiographer (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean it is not hardly a topic (not worthy topic) or a "difficult topic"? If your opinion is the latter, could you also tell your opinion on the 正二品, and 從二品? Whenever I create an article pertinent to titles of Goryeo and Joseon, I missed to translate the related rank due to the problem in translation......I need your knowledge in history.--Caspian blue 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gojoseon (can we keep the test case for a few days)?

Regarding Gojoseon, my edit was a demo case for a requested change to the protected template {{Infobox Former Country}}. Unless there is some damage to Gojoseon, do you mind if we let this edit remain for a week while they check over the code change? For further info on the template change request, see discussion on template page. This particular article was selected because it has a BC date. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that is your testing version about template until sended your message. I just think it was a vandal edit. --Historiographer (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to give a proper edit summary. My mistake. After the upgrade has been denied/accepted, I will correct the article to remove the reference to the user space demo template. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk)

The number of Korean forced laborers

Do you think that the number of Korean forced laborers is 5,400,000 ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just said that its a possibility of action, However, According to Historical atlas of Korea, which was a book about Historical maps, chart and explanation of Korean history, the number of Korean forced laborers were described approximately 450,000 persons. Soon, I should editing with this book. --Historiographer (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the number of dead Korean forced laborers is 450,000 ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, 450,000 persons are total number of them, not number of dead. However, Many of them are dead. It's a clearly true. --Historiographer (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of them ? How much their death rate do you think ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, R.J. Rummel say "a possible range in the Korean death rate of 5 to 15 percent"[3].--NAZONAZO (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessarily need that dead number. The most important thing, Their's total number is it. --Historiographer (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So, "many of them dead" is not necessary.--NAZONAZO (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

However, "many of them dead" is true, Therefore, it's existenc is necessary.--Historiographer (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Though you don't know death rate or the number of death, why do you say "many" ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In Those days, The laborers's dead was not decribed. Also, Death rate and number of death is different section, and you are said to me as "you don't know death rate or the number of death?", But You don't have neglect to me, I know what is your said.--Historiographer (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you say. My question is simple. Is there source of "many of them dead" ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you say to me? I don't understand what you say too. Source is History of Modern Korea, published by Kumsung. --Historiographer (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I question again. Is it written "many of them dead in seven years" in that book ?--NAZONAZO (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Goguryeo Intro Paragraph

No need to call it Korean in the first sentence. The second paragraph does a sufficient job of that. Keep the first sentence fairly neutral as to not invite revision war by Chinese netizens. Thanks. WangKon936 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Goguryeo was not related with China. It just some of the Chinese's insist. Therefore, The word, which is called "Korean", is neutral rather than "East Asian" or the other words.--Historiographer (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Koguryo is an East Asian kingdom AND one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea is NOT saying that it is a Chinese kingdom. And all Three Korean Kingdoms were related to China so much as they borrowed and adapted Chinese culture and technology for their own uses much like the Goths (forerunners of the Germans) and Franks (forerunner of the French) used Roman culture and technology to develop themselves. WangKon936 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of cource, Three Kingdoms of Korea is not mean as chinese kingdom. However, That Asian history is not to be compared with Western history. You said that is "borrowed and adapted Chinese culture.", But Your words have a very distort of illogicalities implication. All of Korean kingdom were related to China, However, they were not into the Sinocentrism. Why do you insist only called Goguryeo as "East Asian Kingdom"? Baekje and Silla were also borrowed and adapted part of Chinese system. But Baekje and Silla were not refer to "East Asian Kingdom". That doesn't stand to reason at all. --Historiographer (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Hi Historiagrapher, thanks for your help with cleanup at South Korea. But please remember to use edit summaries, especially when removing stuff, so it's easier for other people to follow what you're doing. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Forced" image sizes in South Korea article

I think you misunderstood the problem with forced image sizes. Please read the Images section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. When the Manual of Style talks about "forced" image sizes, it's talking about images with fixed dimensions. Images in the South Korea article use the default thumb size. Adding fixed image sizes does not make them smaller. With few exceptions, images should not be "forced to a fixed size" because the thumb size works best in most situations. Although a fixed image size might look okay on your display, the default thumb size is preferable. Several sections of the South Korea article require the default thumb size to avoid overlapping text and misaligned tables. The fixed image sizes don't display correctly. Mtd2006 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mtd2006 is correct; image sizes should not be added without reason, and in this article there is no reason to add them; I have looked at it on multiple browsers and multiple computers and none of the images are problematic at the default sizes. Usually the only time image sizes should be forced is for a lead or infobox image, and sometimes for special unusual images (for example, the one at Appalachian Trail#Route). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chiyou

Hi, I was planning on editing a portion of the Chiyou article which you had contributed to. I have listed my reasons in the talk page [4], but before I make any changes, I would like to get your comments on it if possible. Thank you whipsandchains (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hey there. I saw that you recently blanked a number of pages and added a {{hangon}} tag to them. While I thing you meant to add the {{delete}} tag, those articles are probably better off going to WP:AFD, where more editors can take a look at your edits and double check them. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, I removed the speedy tag. You might discuss on the talk p. first. If they are based upon a well-known false theory, they can be discussed as such. Or take to afd. Remember to notify previous editors. DGG (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to alert you that blanking content in the way you have been doing is likely to be considered unproductive. Please do not continue; please do not place further speedy tags on articles because you think the content is erroneous. See WP:Dispute resolution for the proper way to proceed. DGG (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

grammar problem

hi, recently, i edited liancourt rocks dispute, but, some one say, "rv, unreadable, ungrammatical and highly tendentious additions" and revert it.[5]

• My version[6]

please can you correct grammar of my edit? i want help from someone.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I really sorry to you, I also babd grammar too. Really sorry.--Historiographer (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Joseon Dynasty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only been 24 hours since the block expired, and now you have reverted again. I see no consensus for either party's edits at the talk page, and really neither one of you should be editing the article directly to this point; you should all be confined to the talk page. I am undoing your edit, not because I have a preference for either version, but because you made it against consensus. When this block expires, please keep to the talk page and do not edit the article; it's your responsibility to reach an acceptable consensus at the talk page.

The same goes for Jpatokal. I'm not singling you out or anything; the reason you were blocked and he wasn't is because you reverted again and he didn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

About Joseon Dynasty

Sorry for the late reply Historiographer. They just don't quit do they? I never quite understood where their obsession comes from. To compensate perhaps? Haha just entertaining the idea. Unfortunatly I'll be going away for awhile (hiking Mt. Baekdu). So this will be my last time signing on for a time. What's troubling is that the mediator Rjanag reverted your edit (the original). Might I suggest that you request a new mediator? Preferably one that has no ties with Korean or Chinese articles. Anyways, I'll see what I can do. Akkies (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Troubling"? There was clear edit warring, I don't care what the content is, I reverted it because it was an inappropriate way to edit.

As for the "mediator"... I am not officially "the mediator", but Historiographer did ask me several weeks ago to look at the article...does that obligate me to side with him in every dispute? And where, Akkies, did you get the idea that I have "ties to Korean articles"? Because I edit the South Korea article (basically doing nothing but cleanup, vandalism fixes, and mediating revert wars), suddenly I'm a POV editor? I really suggest you get to know who you're talking about before throwing around accusations. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoe (dish)

You really should revert your edit on the article. The section was "written by me" and I stopped editing the article in the middle of translation of sources that I referred. The information can be confirmed with "several Korean encyclopedias" or other reliable food sites, and that is about how Korean began eating "hoe".--Caspian blue 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just think that is chinese point section. Sorry.--Historiographer (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the information. You may be mistaken with the current article status that lacks Korean eating hoe during the Joseon period and onwards. At that time, I felt tired of translating Korean sources. Confucius should be mentioned because that explains how Koreans stared eating hoe and resumed the consumption after the Goryeo period that prohibited editing raw meat or fish. I will add more translation later to the article. The section only covers half of my sources. --Caspian blue 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

advice

青鬼よし[7] = 219.101.251.98

He has been screwing up the WikiSyntax, and completely pushing his own original research. What do you think should be done? recently, he want reinforcements from japanese adminstrator[8] and chinese[9] for keep his POV pushing.

I wrote my opinion about Baekje and Ancient_maritime_history in TalkPage. when you have spare time, Please write your opinion.[10][11]Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Thank you for some advice to me. Although, there are Japanese user more than Korean user, and they always asserted an unreasonable claim. I do not care a bit. Thanks. --Historiographer (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Sovereign States in ...

Hey Historiographer,

Typically, we try to list countries according to their official names during the year in question. From what I understand, the name "Korea" wasn't in use in any official capacity before the Korean Empire was established in 1897. This would make the correct listing for the years before 1897 "Joseon - Kingdom of Great Joseon" and not "Korea - Kingdom of Joseon" as you've been adding.

I also notice that you've been blocked before for edit warring on the question of whether or not the Joseon Dynasty was a sovereign state, so maybe it would be best if you left these edits to someone else. It could be perceived as a continuation of that edit war if the involved parties haven't arrived at a consensus yet.

Thanks. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Joseon Dynasty, you will be blocked from editing. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't threat to me. You are not Administrators. --Historiographer (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR

(responding here because if I continue posting at AN3 it will be a distraction and no outside admins will come to review the case)

The reason I blocked you immediately after your revert was because it was right after protection came up, because you knew better, and because it was a simple machine revert with no explanation given—you didn't even try to say why it was worth reverting, you just did it. As another admin said above, that is tendentious and you should know better.

As for Apollo's recent edits... first of all, they are not machine reverts, he was at least trying to do things slightly differently and he gave edit summaries. Yes, he still did not have the right to make those edits, but he was not intentionally being tendentious; he was trying to make a new solution to the dispute (albeit a bad solution). His last two edits that you linked (one was not actually a revert since it changed the content) were based on a miscommunication, because I gave him a message that he thought was giving him permission to make the edit (it wasn't). Notice that since I have sent him another message afterwards, he stopped reverting. Because blocks are preventative and not punitive, there is no need to block someone when they have made it clear they're going to stop reverting.

In your case with the last block, the fact that you reverted on purpose when you knew you shouldn't meant that I was justified in blocking you—you clearly hadn't gotten the message and weren't going to stop. In this case, the user's reverting was based on a misunderstanding and he has stopped since then. If he reverts on purpose then I will block him, but if he remains quiet there is no reason to.

Like I said already, your time would be better spent commenting at Talk:Joseon Dynasty, rather than pursuing a vendetta against Apollo. What does it matter to you if he gets blocked or not? The important thing is the article, not individual editors. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm poor at English. I'm hard to understand your too long comment. I don't know what is "tendentious editing" and I have no bad feeling about the Chinese editor. I only dislike his disruptive edit and insults to Korean editors. I want fair treatment from you. He was blocked but he made many disruptive edits without discussion and left many insulting edit summary. And he knows many Wikipedia rules, so I do not understand your wide mind to the user.--Historiographer (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already yelled at the editor and possibly driven him away from the project[12][13]. What more do you want?

It looks like you're just trying to get revenge. Let me say this again: don't worry about the one editor. Worry about improving the article. Instead of wasting your time in this discussion, contribute to the discussion I started on the article talkpage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1RR block

Per WP:ARBLIANCOURT, you have been blocked for 24 hours for violating (see this edit) the 1RR rule on Liancourt Rocks. The specific section violated at the top of the talk page reads:

No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that if another editor disagrees with your edit the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit.

Please use the 24 hours to review the "Suggested Rules of Engagement" at the top of the talk page to make sure you have them clear in your mind when you can begin editing again. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your history maps

You should upload all your history maps into Wikimedia Commons.I want to use them in Thai Wikipedia.

--KarnRedsun (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Korea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)