User talk:Innoqua

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Economy of North Korea has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/businessNK (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/businessNK (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added  do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the  before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

North Korea‎
Please stop adding text about the business school to the North Korea article. It's adding way too much WP:WEIGHT for an article about the whole country, and it would probably be better placed in one of the articles about some part of the country, like Economics. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am surprised at your remark. Within the North Korean context the set-up of the Pyongyang Business School was an important milestone and therefore very important - at least important enough for BBC, CNN, The Financial Times, Le Monde and others to report about. But while you cancel its mention you accept the following: "In a 2003 event dubbed the "Pong Su incident", a North Korean cargo ship allegedly attempting to smuggle heroin into Australia was seized by Australian officials, strengthening Australian and United States' suspicions that Pyongyang engages in international drug smuggling. The North Korean government denied any involvement.[99]" Not only is it a very long sentence but it is irrelevant since an Australian court ruled that the allegations made against the North Korean ship could not be proven and it let the ship go. From this I got the impression that Wikipedia's editors have strong personal opinions which, as this example shows, often are very arbitrary (and not backed by facts). With this finding I have come to the conclusion that I better refrain from contributing any further. Regards, (Innoqua (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Okay, well, I was going based on what you added in the article, which contained only one of those sources, and didn't even have a link to the reference where I could see it for myself. It really just seemed like you were adding in some tidbit about a school that opened in North Korea. As to the Pong Su thing, there's an article on Wikipedia about it, so mentioning it in the North Korea article seems to make sense. By comparison, I don't seen an article at Pyongyang Business School. I'd be okay with adding it into the article as long as other editors agree with its inclusion. To that end, you may want to post on Talk:North Korea about it.
 * As a side note, I really don't appreciate you blasting this on your user page. It's sort of a personal attack on me, and I'd ask you to remove it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it that you take my arguments seriously and I will remove my comments on my user page. I would like to answer your remarks as follows: First, Pyongyang Business School: You can find quotes from 3 newspapers (including Financial Times and Le Monde on the School's website, see subpage "objectives". If you go to The Financial Times you will find the article on the Pyongyang Business School entitled "Graduates prove N Korea is now open for business" which clearly expresses the significance of this school for hitherto closed North Korea (and perhaps the rest of the world that has an interest in integrating it into the world community).
 * Second: PongSu ship. Go to Tim Beal's website where you will find a couple of newspaper articles on this case that will give you update. Beal is a senior Professor at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Foreign investment that does exist is mentionned in 1 very short sentence with no further explanation under "Foreign commerce" whereas the speculative PongSu case is "allowed" 2 sentences below which take 3.5 times more space than the one on foreign investment. The question arises what should be given more priority? (Innoqua (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Hi. Sorry I didn't respond to you sooner; real life got in the way. Now that I've had a chance to look at the sources, I added back a line about the business school. The major difference between what I added and what you added is the amount of content. Per WP:WEIGHT, it's excessive to put in lots of information about what sort of degrees they offer and objectives and all sorts of things; that sort of text would be more suitable for an article on the school itself. As to the Pong Su thing, again, there's an article on it on Wikipedia already, and it was a considerably larger event than the opening of a school. Text in the North Korea article should be proportionately weighted to significance on a global scale, and the school carries less importance. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the reply as I have no intention of dragging you into an endless debate. But while there is no doubt that the business school is of significance both for North Korea and the outside world I still doubt whether the PongSu ship story is of any relevance. As we all know the Bush-administration and the conservative Howard-government put enormous pressure on North Korea after NK's nuke and missile tests and, within this context, intensified allegations about drug trafficking and money counterfeiting against NK. That's nothing new since they also made allegations against Saddam Hussein's Iraq (weapons of mass destruction accusation without any proof). The money counterfeiting charges against NK have not only been questioned by the Swiss federal police (which is supervising the money printing equipment manyfacturers 90% or more of which are based in Switzerland) but also by the large (and serious) US-newspaper group McClatchy which thoroughly investigated them. I am not an apologist of NK but I am just pleading for fairness and objectivity.Innoqua (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A search on Google News for "Pyongyang Business School" yields six hits, whereas "Pong Su" yields 488, so I think one is a little more important than the other. As to the rest of what you wrote, how is any of that relevant to this? Just because you think that the Pong Su incident was relatively unimportant doesn't mean everyone else does. Per WP:V, we go by the sources - so if Pong Su got more coverage, then we have to reflect that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's coverage that matters predominantly wikepedia's references should not include any more quality papers but only tabloids that contain sex, crime and paparazzi stories (sells best and therefore has highest coverage). Only bestsellers (and no books that are read "only" by scientists and experts) should be cited any longer. Instead let's quote now rumors from mass-circulation dailies, unproven allegations by the most often quoted politicians etc. Great, Wikipedia becomes then a truly "people's encyclopedia" meeting the taste of the silent majority...Innoqua (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At that point you're getting into a question of reliable sources. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)