User talk:Kuebie/Archive 2

Your input
would be appreciated at Talk:Anti-Korean sentiment in China [sic] initiated by  since you have clean up both the article and its parent one. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop romoving cited matrials
You removed some cited materials as a garbage, based on your thought. If you feel something bad about articles, please fix it, dont remove it. Thank you.--Arstriker (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's removing you dimwit. You have this particular habit of replacing e's and a's with o's. I swear you ESL students should not be editing the English wikipedia. That aside, I wonder whose sock you are... Ebizur? Probably not. At least that dude can form complete sentences without non sequiturs. Hmmm. Aaaanyway, your sources suck. :P --Akkies (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion page
Please read the discussion page of anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea before reverting. You will see why I removed the section.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep reverting without discussing the page? Come to the discussion page!--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich
Hi, Kuebie, I've filed Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich. Since you have a history of meeting the sockpupeter, your input would be greatly helpful for the sockpuppet investigation. Regards.--Caspian blue 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

About the section
If you have read the discussion page, why don't you join it before reverting it? If you have good enough reasons, you should express your opinion on the discussion page.

Let me explain why the whole section should be removed.


 * Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history, with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan. In Japan this history is downplayed or omitted causing anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. The terms that Japan prefer instead of Korea is "the peninsula", "mainland" or the all encompassing China. If they decide to mention Korea there seems to be a odd need to write "via" Korea instead of just Korea. When Japan is asked about "the peninsula" usage the answer is that Korea as we know it did not exist at the time, but Japan does not oppose using the term "Japan" or "China" which also did not exist as we know it at that time. This odd practice has added to the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

There is no supporting evidence so fat. Japan prefers to call Korea "the peninsula". I've never heard such an idea. Japan calls Korea "the peninsula" because Korea as we know it did not exist at the time? There is no source for this claim. This section should be removed because there is no supporting evidence.


 * Emperor Kammu's grandfather was Korean but this is not mentioned often in Japan nor is it studied

Shoku Nihongi says that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of Korean ancestory. But there is no proof that this is not mentioned often in Japan nor is it studied.


 * indept to find their Korean lineage, instead Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists

The source, the website of National Geographic, doesn't say anything like this. The website does not say anything about Emperor Kammu. It is true that Imperial tombs are blocked but the website does not say it is because of the Korean lineage. This is not a proper citation.


 * and historiacal errors from the early 1900s are not updated.

This is not a fact but a claim by DPRK. This matter is controversial and gf you want to mention this website, you should say say "DPRK claims....".


 * The National geographics wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"

You can see the word "rumors". The source does not say Japan denies the connection between Korea and the Imperial family or anything like that.


 * Other historians have pointed to "Korean type pottery, crowns, earrings, and weapons are artifacts that are commonly found in fifth century Japanese tombs, and the stone-corridor-and-chambered tombs in northern Kyūshū are perhaps “the tombs of descendents of Koguryŏ immigrants from Korea." and "The importation of Korea-style jewelry at this time implies [that]…the techniques of inlaying and inscribing also entered Japan in the fifth century. Once again it seems apparent that peninsular master metalworkers taught the native of the island their important skills.” (Farris, 1996: 13)"

It is true that Japan learned a lot from Korea. However, it does not have anything to do with the article because the next sentence is not properly cited.


 * Whenever the Japanese downplay these facts, it causes tension and mistrust in Korea.

There is no source for this sentence. When and how did the Japanese downplay these facts? When the "denial" caused tension and mistrust in Korea? There is no supporting evidence for this claim.


 * Many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea, "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings" The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

It is true that many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea. But there is no source for the claim that Japan "denies" these facts.

In conclusion, this section has several sources but most of them are irrelevant or not properly cited. Moreover, the section repeatedly uses the word "denial", but there is no evidence that Japan "denies" these "facts".

Before reverting the page, please discuss these matters one by one.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Japanese sentiment in 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting
Can you please stop reverting and start to talk? I'll tell you why your edit is not proper. Please discuss the matter before reverting. You refuse to talk but keep reverting. You are too self-centered. Please come to the discussion.


 * Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history, with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan.

Do not talk as if the relationship between Korea and Japan was a one-way relationship. "with Korea transmitting major technological advances to Japan" should be removed.


 * In Japan this history is downplayed or omitted causing anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

Who "downplayed" what? The word "downplay" is not the word. It is your only your interpretation.


 * Emperor Kammu's grandfather was recorded to be of Korean ancestry but this is disputed by some Japanese historians, citing the source as unreliable.

Shoku Nihongi says that it's Emperor's mother who was of Korean ancestry.


 * Accordingly, Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists

You talk as if the fact that some historians dispute over the reliability of the source have something to do with the fact that Imperial tombs are blocked. However, the source does not say anything like that. Therefore "accordingly" isn't the word. There's no relationship between the dispute over the source and the tomb.


 * and historical errors from the early 1900s are not updated.

What does the "historical errors" have to do with the section.


 * The National geographics wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"

Rumours are rumours.


 * Other historians have pointed to "Korean type pottery, crowns, earrings, and weapons are artifacts that are commonly found in fifth century Japanese tombs, and the stone-corridor-and-chambered tombs in northern Kyūshū are perhaps “the tombs of descendents of Koguryŏ immigrants from Korea." and "The importation of Korea-style jewelry at this time implies [that]…the techniques of inlaying and inscribing also entered Japan in the fifth century. Once again it seems apparent that peninsular master metalworkers taught the native of the island their important skills.” (Farris, 1996: 13)" Many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea, "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings"


 * The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

Do not use the word "denial" and "facts" because there is no source that says Japan "denies" something and those mentioned above are "facts".--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
 You have been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as a single-purpose account dedicating to pushing an agenda. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note For any reviewing admin, User talk:Daniel Case. --Caspian blue 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just hold a moment. The blocking admin intended to lift the block, but the procedure for unblocking seems to need a little more time.---Caspian blue 00:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR case
See the result of WP:AN3, which contains a warning to you, not to continue restoring your version of Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea unless you get consensus for it on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by Japanese users
Kuebie, You should be looking at the Sennen goroshi's wilful vandals in many korea-related articles. Seeing the Sockpuppet investigations/Sennen goroshi/Archive, He was accused by Caspian Blue before. But he stiil do. I hope you should something that. I noticed to Historiographer that's contents before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.16.129.194 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

English wikipedia
requires English language sources, or reliable translations. Get them, or the sources are not reliable and the section gets trimmed. Got it? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

a friendly warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

just a friendly warning regarding the 3RR rule, just in case you are not aware of it. On the Kim Gu article, you seem to be reverting me, while I am adding new information - if you revert to much, someone will report you and you may be blocked.

Why not go to the talk page and gain some consensus, if you feel strongly about this?

have a nice day ! カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN3. Please respond there. EdJohnston (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR again
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Goguryeo. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SGGH ping! 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
A thread has been raised regarding your edits at the above page. SGGH ping! 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

About History of Korea
What ever you may think, history is hitsory. I never said Korea was a part of China. However, it is true that China had a very strong influence on Korea and the aim of the first Sino-Japanese war was to cut the link between the two countries. Have you ever read the Treaty of Shimonoseki? It says "China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea." This is what Japan needed to take control of Korea. Whatever Koreans considered their country as, Qing Dynasty considered Joseon as one of its client state.

I don't think you know much about history of your own country. Don't you know what the Independence Gate in Seoul was made for? "The gate was built following the first Sino-Japanese war to inspire a spirit of independence away from previous Korean arrangement as a Chinese protectorate. Its construction began on November 21, 1896, and finished November 20, 1897." This is what happened then, even if you don't want to admit it.

I don't think you know history about Yeongeunmun either. It says "In 1896, the gate was demolished along with Mohwagwan one year after the First Sino-Japanese War ended, which was a war between China and Japan primarily for the control over Korea. The Korean independence activist Seo Jae-pil (known as Philip Jaisohn) built the Independence Gate on the site with the desire towards inspiring the spirit of independence in Korea."

Korean's may think Korea had been independent since its birth. But the Chinese don't think so and there is no doubt that China's recognition of the "full and complete independence and autonomy" of Joseon was due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Koreans at that time admitted it as you can see from the fact that they built a gate named "Independence Gate" right after the treaty. You cannot deny this fact.

I never said Korea was a part of Qing Dynasty. I don't think you read my line very well. What I wrote is

''As a result of this war, China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, which was the first step for Japan to control Korea. ''

I never said Korea was a colony or a part of Qing. What I say is that Korea became free from the strong influence of China because of the Treaty. This is the fact and you cannot deny it.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Korean nationalism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

read it
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Page_Guidelines#Others.27_comments

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating WP:3RR at Talk:History of Korea.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene talk 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Further information for reviewing admin: please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 16:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Korean cuisine
Thanks for your participation. Just watch the harsh language though as ridiculous as this is. The articles owners will try to use it to attack you. The only reference on this is Petitt and it seems the reference actually doesn't support dog meat being on the same level as pork and grains. I doubt that any reference would such a claim. I'm hoping to take this steadily along dispute resolution steps even to mediation. I hope you stick around.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ticket Dabang
Sorry, I thought this was vandalism. I am slightly concerned that there has been such a loss material in your cleanup but its not an area I have any knowledge in. Are you planning to re-extend the article? G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 11:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've just salvaged the referenced portion of the article since most of it was incomprehensible or read like a blog posting. I was going to propose merging it with the dabang article as a sub-section. Akkies (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On reviewing it, it certainly was a poor quality article. I would support a merge if you propose it, just let me know.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 11:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

 * Could you please explain why you consider my edits to be vandalism? Elmor (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Korea under Japanese rule, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

again, read the discussion page
I (along with most people on most pages) usually put in reasons to why we make significant edits to a partciular article, I'm not sure what's your reason (since you didn't say anything) for completely reverting my recent Imjin war edit on the second invasion, if it's because of the siege of Ulsan, then know that I am posting almost entirely off Korean and Chinese sources. and if you actually care, I can point out to you where and why I put it like that.

(RollingWave (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Specifically in reply to your message

1. in your reversion, I hardly added anything except a more precise account of the battle of Ulsan (which was woefully done and often ridiculed elsewhere for it's inaccuratcy), which was what? 1 sentence?

2. the majority of the edit was focused on shifting around the Naval battles to match up better with the events on land, since they were obvioulsy connected.

3. I can't even recall removing a single English source, all the source I have added were on areas that was virtually unsourced

4. In case you havn't noticed, more than half of the "Chinese" source that I added were in fact Korean sources that was recorded in Chinese, aka the Annals of the Joseon dynasty. and whatever I did quote out of the history of the Ming or Song YingChang's letters matches up just fine with the Annals' description anyway.

5. The objectivity of the English sources, as well as the subject as a whole, is often widely debated and contended, if you just take a look at the Chinese / Japanese / Korean version of the same article that much is obvious, which usually means it's probably a good idea to be as specific on your source as possible.

6. Unless you want to do a whole sale change to the article (aka with just a simple description of the overall outline, which would take what... 2 sentences?), it's going to be super long with a huge amount of citations anyway(it was before I touched anything). It's absurd that if you look at the previous discussions on the articles over the years how much both sides bashed each other for biased sourcing or simply the lack of sourcing, yet your accusing me of playing scholar when I actually go into detail on the Korean/Chinese sources.

7. if you compare this article to say.. the WW2 article, you'll realize that it is hardly oversourced (the WW2 main article is actually shorter but has about 50% more citations). if you really want to contend, I can remove the precise quote of the annals / history of Ming and simply go with say "Annals of Seonjo entry on XX/XX/XXXX".

(RollingWave (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

removal of tags
the tag in this pure blood theory refers us to the talk page but it's blank. You can leave the tags there again and put the article as a candidate for deletion, as long as you prepare to discuss it. Please help improve the article with more communications. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Pure blood theory in Korea
Hi, I saw Winstonlight's talk page that you plan to have an AFD for the article. I don't if you made it yet but I suggest you stop as the article in currently well-sourced and has a very very very low chance of being deleted. Derild 49  21  ☼  20:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)