User talk:Cryingnut

Ethnic groups of South Korea

Thanks for adding information on ethnic groups. I'm a little concerned, though, about this source; I don't mind that it's a Christian organization, but I find it weird that they list "American," "British," and "deaf" as ethnic groups. Do you know anything about the reliability of this data? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they use data from the United Nations census - the total population is the same as the UN population estimate, so the data is definitely accurate. Regarding ethnic groups, I just grouped some groups together since it could get a bit too long otherwise. Cryingnut (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Developed Country

Dear Cryingnut I notice you restored the CIA advanced economy list which I got rid of (I also added a comment to the IMF list on which it was based). It seems to me a bit odd to include this list as my reading of it is that the CIA in 1999 just took an old version of the IMF list and added some small countries which it thought were missing (with the rather strange wording "this group would presumably also cover"). I would take their approach to imply that they accepted the IMF's approach and so we could just go with the IMF's list which has been updated more recently. I don't see that the CIA list adds much (except Euopean/White microstates) and it is old. The idea that the Faroe Islands are an advanced economy seems odd to me - don't you think? Perhaps a note to the IMF list saying that the CIA suggested adding seven smaller countries to an old version of the list. Perhaps putting the little flags on the IMFs advanced economy list. What are your views on this? Perhaps on the talk for the page. Best wishes whatever. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Dablinks

Hey Cryingnut, thanks for adding dablinks at South Korea. I just wanted to let you know, though, that the general guideline is only to provide dablinks for pages that are likely search terms that might have brought the person to this article. In other words, a dablink pointing to North Korea is not necessary, because no one looking for South Korea would have typed "North Korea"; likewise, a dablink pointing to Korea is also not necessary, since someone looking for the article on Korean culture in general would not have typed "South Korea." (On the other hand, on the main Korea article it does make sense to have dablinks to North Korea and South Korea, because a person looking for one of those articles might just type "Korea" as their search term.)

The dablink that has been on this article normally is {{redirect|South Korean}}, because "South Korean" is a term that redirects to this article but that people might type when they're looking for something else (for example, an article on South Korean people).

I hope this helps explain things, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Please discuss your edits at Talk before reverting any more. There are numerous editors involved in this article, and it appears that you are simply repeatedly reverting to a version before we got involved.

The reason I have been reverting your edits is because other editors and I have spent a lot of time trying to clean up the format of the references and give all the relevant author/title/publisher/date information to help with reference verification, and you are undoing all of our work. For example, your edits have replaced

<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.korea.net/news/news/newsView.asp?serial_no=20080301004&part=103 |title=Korea role model for Latin America: envoy |publisher=Korean Culture and Information Service |date=1 March 2008 |accessdate=2009-02-16}}</ref>

with

<ref>[http://www.korea.net/news/news/newsView.asp?serial_no=20080301004&part=103&SearchDay= Korea role model for Latin America: envoy]</ref>

, which is poor referencing style and makes it difficult for people to verify the references. You have also changed content without explaining why (for example, changing "It has the fourth-largest economy in Asia" to "the second most prosperous major economy in Asia").

This is a collaborative work, so I ask that you please discuss these edits at talk in the future, before you continue to undo the work of people who have been bending over backwards to improve the article. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the above source change, however, you have reverted my other edits without any explanation and simply reverted to your version. Remove bits that need to be removed but only with justification - not the whole edit. Cryingnut (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the exact same thing I have been telling you: if you don't like the thing about the borders, just remove that, don't remove all the ref formatting and other things we have done. I'm don't want to go through looking up all those references, dates, authors, etc., all over again, nor do I want to have to rewrite the section to accomodate your new stuff; it would be much easier for you to remove the one or two things you don't like, rather than reverting to some previous version and undoing all of our formatting.

Likewise, about the date thing: I know October 3 is Foundation Day, but that's not what the infobox is for. The infobox is for showing the important points in Korean history—ie, the actual founding, not just the date that it is celebrated today. That's why I changed the entry and removed October 3. Korea wasn't actually founded on October 3, so it shouldn't go in the "historical" section of the infobox. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I will restore any source changes but I disagree with the National Foundation Day - the exact same date is used in Japan's National Foundation Day - if your justification is valid and a consensus exists, why not remove their figure then, but remove South Korea's? Cryingnut (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That just means they are doing something wrong at the Japan article; the fact that one article does something doesn't mean we have to do it, too (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The main point is, National Foundation Day is just a holiday, not part of the historical timeline. It commemorates the founding of modern Korea, but that doesn't necessarily mean that something historical happened on Oct 3; that's just the date that was chosen to celebrate it. Compare that with National Day of the People's Republic of China, which is celebrated on Oct 1 because that is the exact date that the PRC was established in 1949. That makes sense for recent establishments, but for things that happened in 2000 BC there wasn't a record of Gregorian dates. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I accept your point. As I explained earlier on, you are continuing to remove some of my edits without any justifications. For example, South Korea is not "considered" to be a Asian Tiger, it is an Asian Tiger. I don't think that needs clarification or sources, it is just a fact which you can look up in any encyclopedia. You removed my edit about South Korea being the second most prosperous major economy in Asia without a valid justification - this is true fact. You also removed "Today, it the world's fastest growing advanced economy" without any reason. Cryingnut (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

Caspian is correct; these edits are reverts ([1][2][3][4]). There's no point wikilawyering about it; just agree to participate in the discussion at the talk page, rather than engaging in a war within the actual article. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring Wikipedia guidelines here. Capsian is incorrect, I am afraid, the third and fourth "reverts" are clearly edits as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines for what is an edit and what is a revert. See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Cryingnut (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, no one is interested in Wikilawyering over this. A "revert" is defined by the spirit of it, not by whether or not you went back to an exact copy of a previous version. We don't care how you choose to define "revert," we just want the article to be stable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you might not "care" about Wikipedia guidelines, but Wikipedia does. Who is "we" here? You and Caspian? Your justifications are highly subjective. Define what is "stable". Define "Spirit". Wikipedia guidelines don't have definitions for those I am afraid. Cryingnut (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)