User talk:Jonyungk/Archive 2

User talk:Jonyungk/Archive 1

User talk:Jonyungk/Archive 2

Page created in wrong namespace?
I presume you wanted to create Jonyungk/Archive 1 in the "User talk" namespace, rather than in the main namespace. I moved it, so in case you're looking for it, there it is. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky
Hi Jonyungk. Re your message from 3 September (and apologies for the delay), you might have noticed that I made a few minor edits a couple of days ago. I deliberately avoided this article for some time, as I know you were working assiduously on it, and in any case I was on a wiki-break for 4 weeks while I was overseas. I often find it a good thing to remove myself for a while from an article I've been working solidly on, to regain some perspective and let some others have a go. I'm really not up to speed with the status of where it's at. I generally avoid debates about AFCs etc etc as I'd much rather spend my time actually writing. I have close to 3,000 articles on my Watchlist, and I can't afford to devote huge chunks of my time on any one of them. Fwiw, I have no real issues with where it's at, but of course it will continue to develop and I'll keep my eye on it. I don't get too fussed with issues of whether a long article should be split into various smaller ones - they're all easily accessible in any case, and if that's what the consensus wants, so be it. Maybe you have stronger feelings than I do about this particular article, as you have spent an inordinate amount of time on it. The general quality is a lot higher than before you did that work, so credit where it's due. Cheers. -- JackofOz 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to pass along my appreciation for your superb monitoring and editing of the Tchaikovsky article.THD3 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:031120_Urubicha_Taneyev.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:031120_Urubicha_Taneyev.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. OsamaK 11:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Tchai 1874.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tchai 1874.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 121.112.124.72 (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Trust me, the homicide would have been the other two of Cesar Cui's triplet brothers who rose up out of their graves to haunt the peer review. :P It wasn't anything against you. :) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:46 3 January, 2008 (UTC)

Louis Dorus
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Louis Dorus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

reply about Claude-Paul Taffanel
Hi Jonyungk! Nice to talk to you again! I suggest looking at this page: Help:Merging_and_moving_pages.

My suggestion: Tag Paul Taffanel with the template "mergeto" and on the Claude-Paul Taffanel, tag it with the template "mergefrom". I actually haven't encountered the problem of merging yet.

I hope this helps. If you have more questions, feel free to post. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonyungk, just another comment. If you think that no one will really object to the merge of Paul Taffanel and Claude-Paul Taffanel, be bold and just do the merging manually. (There is no easy way to merge except copy and paste with small minor edits, I think.) I can help you with the merge if you need it. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
To reduce the frequency, try adding inuse at the top of the article before undertaking major changes. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonyungk; I apologize very much that I interfered with your editing; I didn't know. If you are annoyed at me, please forgive me! I must say that you are making great contributions to the liszt concerto page; I thank you. (If you are making large edits to a page, it may be useful to click "preview" of the page to see if someone has edited the page before you. Also, a quick cut-and-paste of text from an external editor helps.) Anyway, if I really messed up your editing a lot, I'm sorry! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please change the tag tl|inuse. Remove the "tl|". A proper tag will appear. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tchaik Citations
Hey Jonyungk,

You must forgive me. I really have no idea how to work wikipedia, but I am trying my best to be involved in the texts. As far as citations, I used Greenberg, Robert "Great Masters: Tchaikovsky -- His Life and Music". This is also listed under further reading on the tchaik page.

Thanks! John Miller

Tchaik Citations
Hey Jonyungk,

You must forgive me. I really have no idea how to work wikipedia, but I am trying my best to be involved in the texts. As far as citations, I used Greenberg, Robert "Great Masters: Tchaikovsky -- His Life and Music". This is also listed under further reading on the tchaik page.

Thanks! John Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartagnangibbs (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky - Homosexual or Gay
Hi Jonyungk. I've learned to keep out of such debates, because what's offensive to one person isn't to another, so there's no set-in-stone rule about this. You'll find similar debates all over Wikipedia, e.g. Dirk Bogarde. From a personal perspective, I have absolutely no difficulty in being described as "gay", "homosexual" or "queer"; others prefer one or other of these terms, but get offended if any other terms are used. I also can't see why the fact that a term is antiquated (if it in fact is antiquated) necessarily makes it offensive. In any case, "homosexual" is far from antiquated, in my experience. Also, the use of "gay" to refer to people who are homosexual in nature but never acknowledged it is contentious, to say the least, even for living people, and more so where the person in question lived well before the term "gay" was invented. "Gay" has connotations that go beyond merely an attraction to the same sex. I suppose one could make the same argument about "homosexual", which was coined only in the late 1880s from memory - there were obviously many people before then who in fact were, for want of a better word, homosexual. References go back to biblical times, and earlier - and there's no reason to believe that homosexuality has not always been a feature of human society. So, nomenclature is a very complex issue, and if it seems I'm sitting on the fence about this, you're right. I just don't think that "one size fits all". Sorry if that's not helpful.

On a different matter, having looked at the edit history over the past 12 months, while many people have contributed to the article, the name that appears far more than any others is yours, Jongyungk. Sometimes you’ve made dozens of edits on a single day. The scope and quality of the article is far more extensive now than before you became involved – so full credit for all the work you’ve done. However, and maybe I could have said this earlier, but my personal preference is to work on an article incrementally, in smallish changes. When one editor seems to be taking the main running, others may feel that all they can do is to comment on that editor’s work by way of correcting spelling mistakes, grammar or whatever, and there’s not much room to make their own individual contributions. I have close to 4,000 articles on my watchlist, and I prefer not to spend a large amount of time on any one article, but to spread my work around. I also serve on the WP:Reference Desk, and that consumes a fair deal of my time here. These factors have certainly contributed to my avoiding Tchaikovsky for much of the time you’ve been around. I had no reason to believe your work was in any detrimental, in fact what I’ve seen of it suggests the opposite, so I left it you. Others may have had the same attitude, which may explain why your calls for comments have fallen on deaf ears. Ask me to comment on a single sentence, or a single paragraph, or to debate the finer nuances of particular words, and I’m generally fine with that (just not in the debate about "gay" vs. "homosexual", unfortunately) – but asking me to comment on months of substantial contributions in one go is just too much. I simply cannot match your dedication in terms of the time you spend on this one article. Not sure where this leaves you, but I hope it’s of some benefit in considering the way forward for Pyotr Ilyich. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky
Hi Jonyungk; nice to talk to you again. You know, User:Miyokan will not visit the Tchaikovsky page any time recently again, I think. It was just that he seemed to scan through and not carefully read what you wrote. In other words, I would not worry about it; I would actually remove the tags, because the editor did not specify anything on the talk page.

Just an opinion: readers still might see differences in tone of the Tchaikovsky article with a different random article on WP. The Tchaikovsky article is a great informative work on Wikipedia. I am not sure if the level of specificity is required for a Wikipedia article. Also, I am trying to find areas where the tone of the article may not be suitable.

Anyway, the article does look alright to me; Miyokan is not going to start a fight. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rimsky
Just want to say, great job you're doing on the Rimsky-Korsakov article. I hope you're trying to bring it up to FA status...quick glances show the writing style is nice, and it's well organized. I'd love to see one of my favorite composers on the main page. So consider this a thanks and a thumbs up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! I really appreciate both the compliment and the encourqgement. (-: Jonyungk (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky cont.
Whoa, I completely agree with your idea of the Tchaik article. Well, I guess I can try to speak with Miyokan about it, but right now, I guess leave it for just a while longer. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 14:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonyungk. I smiled at your "no Tchaikovsky" statement. Well, Rimsky Korsakov looks just fine to me. Sure, many Wikipedia articles do not really use footnotes and such, but they should contain references, if there is much difference. Not everything needs citations; at least, statements that are very argumentative should be cited. It will depend on how "arguable" an article is; political articles must be well-cited. In fact, music articles may not need much until you get very specific into a biography of a person. ... Are you a member of WikiProject Classical Music? Maybe your questions can be answered more clearly there. It's a pleasure to talk to you. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonyungk! You are finally editing an article under my closely-watched watchlist! The second symphony of Mahler is one of my favorite pieces. I appreciate your editing the article; thank you. Cheers. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 00:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Mlitary History project
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you; looks like I've missed some things on my talk page! Oops. I'm looking at the article now and I'm quite impressed: it's a big improvement, indeed it reads very well. Good work! Thanks to largely to you we have a Tchaikovsky article we can be proud of. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome symphony, isn't it?
B·) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:24 13 April, 2008 (UTC)


 * Cui only exists in hell (where he deserved to go), where he runs a conservatory. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:32 13 April, 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Melnikov
Jonyungk, as you probably know there are many editors who patrol the new pages looking to weed out obvious vandalism. In the patrol guides is the statement "Any page that is not speedy deletable but still has issues should be marked as patrolled after it has been fixed or tagged" (my emphasis). Given that there are various mechanisms (preview and sandboxes) for getting a page in good shape before placing it in the main space, there is an assumption that a new article is close to its final version, and that was my assumption with the Melnikov page (particularly in the absence of a tag to say it was under development.) I don't consider that a tag asking for references was unreasonable. I notice that the article is now looking like a solid stub and cited, so a good addition to Wikipedia. Regards TrulyBlue (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The patrol process ensures that new articles are seen soon after creation and checked for quality. I could see that your Melnikov page was a serious attempt to add good information, and wanted to mark it as having been patrolled so that other patrollers would not need to visit the page: before doing this, however, a patroller should add tags if appropriate.  A strength of the partol process is the immediacy: obvious rubbish is seen, tagged, and deleted very quickly (often with a couple of minutes).  Your page was obviously a potentially a good one, but had a fault: lack of references.  Not seeing any evidence that the page was under construction, I noted the fault and marked the page as being patrolled.  Leaving it unpatrolled and un-tagged would have meant that other editors would have gone in to the page to check it out, probably doing the same as I did.  So I think I was acting entirely within Wikipedia standard procedure, and would ask you to assume good faith on my part.  Regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For further clarification, I would recommend using the under construction or In Use templates if you are developing new pages and are expecting to work on them in live page space. An alternative is to develop in a sandbox and put the article live only when it is ready for prime time.  Regards,  TrulyBlue (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)