User talk:Cydevil3800

Goguryeo controversies

I think it would stop the CPOV users from complaining if we don't include detailed information on the controversies in the Northeast Project page. Just mention it briefly, and link it to the main article (when it's unprotected). I think it would satisfy both sides if we put the controversies in a separate page, don't you think so? (AQu01rius • Talk) 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox header

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You may make test edits in the sandbox, but for the convenience of others, please leave the sandbox heading alone. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for trying to go along with the comprimise--this page is in mediatation and if we don't watch it we might lose more than we want. We should stand by the strong points (Korea really does use this place as a place to make our identity). No one can take that away from us. If others want to claim it, too, they can claim, but it doesn't change what we might think (just like what we think won't change theirs). The best thing I think is to go a little way toward making a comprimise and we get some stuff of our own in, too. Komdori 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gogureyo Reverts

Knock it off... WangKon936 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Please be aware of WP:3RR. You have reverted the infobox twice (removing the map) and the article 3 times in the last 24 hours, for a total of five reverts. Please do not continue. I suggest you self-revert your last changes or you will wind up being reported for a 3RR violation. Komdori 00:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two separate pages. Cydevil38 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the same page, one is a template used on a single page (the other one you were reverting). Komdori 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I put this on 3RR page since you continued afterwards. Komdori 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchuria template

I think renaming it to "Northeast China" is too contentious and in the end not going to work. To address the points you have made, which I believe are valid, how about reverting the name to "History of Manchuria", and providing sub-defintions of "present day Northeast China" and "present day Primosrky Krai", and any other modern political/geographical entities that historic Manchuria are divided into? Cydevil38 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have a look at those templates : we are trying to find an outcome :

-Template:History of Northeast China

-Template:History of Russian Manchuria

RegardsWhlee 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Manchuria template has been only inserted as a compromise to put an end to a revert war, which I believe was at the cost of the integrity of the article. An independent historiography of Manchuria is a minority view. And going further to divide this into two other non-historic entities, I believe, is only worse. In other words, treating Northeast China and Russian Manchuria as historic entities is even more controversial than treating Manchuria as a historic entity. Additionally, using a "Northeast China" history template would be to some extent adopting China's Northeast Project. Cydevil38 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I'll partially revert your changes, while addressing some of your valid points. Cydevil38 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Manchuria was offered in place for insistance of some CPOV editors that a History of China should be placed on a kingdom that is considered by most NPOV sources to be non-Chinese. Having some historiography of Northeast China would be doing serious disservice to the integrity of Wikipedia, as it's a very modern political entity, not a historic or geographic entity. It would be like having a history template of "South Korea" or "Siberia". The majority consensus was on a History of Manchuria, not Northeast China.[1] Cydevil38 00:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

안녕하세요 Cydevil38님, i think your suggestions are good (thank you for remind me what it was written on Goguryeo talk page) but i dunno how to find a issue with Assault11 it is very difficult to negociate with him, in addition to that he is seemingly very arrogant and nationalistic at the moment. My english is not so fluent i am not able to face him. I have spent too much time with that revert war, i would concetrate my effort on puting Russian Manchuria for the moment and if i'm not able to keep a NPOV policy there i would ask Nlu to block it either until finding a compromise.. Have a look on my page concerning User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Timetable_of_Manchuria History of Manchuria. This is not based on nationalistic point of view but on historiography according to me.Regards. Whlee 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

저는 그 인간 무시한지 오래입니다. 어설트의 콘트리브 중 첫 콘트리브를 한번 보세요. 한국인들을 인종적으로 비하하는 하는 사람에게서 큰 기대를 하는것 자체가 무리죠. 그리고 그 사람은 무슨 캐리어처럼 가는 곳 마다 소크퍼펫이 난무하더군요. 요즘 제가 노력하는 바는 중국이 주장하는 것은 확실하게 중국이 주장하는 것이라고 명시하는 것입니다.

죄송 합니다 Cydevil38님, 영어로 아니면 불어로 써주세요, 재가 한국어를 간단한 말 만 잘 알아들어요. 감사합니다.Whlee 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise i wll not forget to add the Ye and the Maek confederation later, i know they are well known by Korean Wikipedian interested in Korean history, i mainly focus my efforts on Tungusic peoples living north and east of Manchuria which remains mainly unknown for example:

- who are really the famous Oranke who permanently raided in Hamgyong province?

- the Udeghe (Tungusic peoples) are they the descendant of Udige (a Jianzhou Jurchen clan who paid hommage to Sejong of Joseon), both of them were/are located between Hamgyong and Primoye ?

- what about the linkage between the Nanai, the Heishui Jurchens and the Heishui Mohe/Heuksoo Malgal (who paid hommage Wang Geon of Goryeo)?

- Kudara くだらthe Japanese word of Baekje (百濟; 100 vassals), does it derived from a Tungusic word (e.g. Manchu word tanggū hala means litteraly 100 clans 百姓 tanggū hala> gū hala(?) > Kudara(?) = Paekche )?

Those kind of questions will help us to expand our history. (i mean interaction between Koreans and its directs northern Tungusic neighbours. i'm not interested in intereactions between China-Korea-Japan because they are well known for most of us).

Your contributions and comment on my User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Timetable_of_Manchuria History of Manchuria page would be warmly welcomed. Regards Whlee 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the best person to ask for opinions for the History of Manchuria, as I only have some knowledge on periods where Koreans were involved in that part of the regional history. Also, I'm involved in the Goguryeo dispute and that's already a strain for my work and daily life. But I'll drop by sometime when the time allows. Oh, and by the way, we're from the same clan :) Cydevil38 22:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your point of view, I also have some knowledge on periods where Koreans were involved in that part of the regional history, but day by day i'm trying to expand them gradually. The same clan? 무순 쓰리야, Cydevil38 님 의 성 및 이름 뭐애요?Whlee 07:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo

고구려 아티클에 고구려가 성립되기 전 환인-지안 일대의 고고학적 관점을 추가하면 좋을 것 같습니다. 아쉽습니다만 문제는 지린주에 발굴 조사된 유적을 살펴 보면, 신석기시대 (혹은 한반도 남부의 즐문토기시대)부터 원삼국시대까지 보고된 유적지가 많지 않습니다. 대부분 자료는 도움이 안 되고 내용이 거의 없는 중국어 발굴개보 같은 것인데, 자료는 주로 Kaogu, Kaogu Xuebao, 그리고 지린대 출판물이 주류를 이루는 것 같습니다. Cydevil38 말씀하신 것 처럼, 그 쪽의 선사시대 문화와 한반도 즐문토기시대 - 무문토기시대 문화와 비슷한 점이 있습니다. 그렇지만, 제대로 보고된 고고학적 자료는 많지 않더라도, 고구려가 성립되기 전 환인-지안 일대의 선사시대 문화의 성격과 즐문토기시대의 문화 성격 여러 생업 및 사회조직에 대한 중요한 차이점 있다고 말 할 수 있습니다. Mumun 無文 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

이송래 교수님의 논문을 봤지요. 그 것도 있고 넬슨 교수님께서 1995년도에 편집하신 책의 논문 중에 Liu Jing-wen 선생님의 쓰신 글도 있습니다.Mumun 無文 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

A checkuser request has been filed for your username and several others: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lions3639 --Reuben 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I might but I can't do much at this point as I'm busy. Davidpdx 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few minutes ago the sockpuppet warning was removed from both of our pages. I don't know whether that means the allegations have been proven not true or what. It wouldn't surprise me if someone put it back though. Davidpdx 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've located better WHOIS data (from the .kr records this time) that suggest the three are different people. Voice-of-All 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed trolling

Excuse me for being bold, but I removed some offensive trolling from your user talk page. Mumun 無文 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

도와주세요

Please help me to expand an article concerning Balhae i'hve found that Balhae previously controlled region located on the west of Sungari/Songhua river those are named 약홀주(若忽州),목저주(木底州) and 현도주 (玄兎州). 약홀주 is corresponding to the actual Dandong, i need further infos about those provinces which were probably lost during Balhae history maybe between 750-820 because i'm sure that :

- Under 대무예/무왕 reign, 장문휴 launched a naval campaign against Tang at 등주(登州) in the Shandong Peninsula in 732 (maybe from 약홀주 ). I dont think that Balhae navy skirt/bypass the Korean peninsula controlled at this time by Silla.

- In addition to that Balhae lost those reions before 820 according to Balhae administration under in 820 (List of Provinces of Balhae).

I found a list of links :

Where's the article that you're working on? I'm a bit confused. Cydevil38 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i'm working on that article but my Korean proficiency is a bit low to allow me to write things on the 3 former provinces of Balhae.Whlee 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Third Opinions

Generally, a third opinion request should be made on the WP:3O page following the instructions there. Even if your message does not fall afoul of WP:CANVAS, it would be more effective to post one message where all interested editors can see it rather than many messages on the talk pages of individual editors (who may not be knowledgeable or interested enough in this particular issue to effectively apply). Anomie 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion Forthcoming

I received the request for a Third Opinion, and would like to know where I can post to discuss and weigh in. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I have the expertise to make such a judgment. Pardon me if I break some of the arguments posed by both sides in the debate on the talk, but I suggest a compromise and renaming it into the text shown in the template itself, which would be Template:History of Northeast China and Russian Far East. If that's too wordy, then I'd suggest History of Manchuria, since it's more inclusive than Northeast China. Please disregard my opinion if it's too insophisticated. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC) PS: Don't remove your posting at 3O, you'll want as many opinions as you can get.[reply]

I wish to remain neutral, so I have protected the page from further reverting. Note that it is not an endorsement of the current revision. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think protection was a bit heavy-handed (as it does endorse by present edit one view over the other), I think my Third Opinion hasn't really been listened to. People there seem a bit too interested in being patriotic to actually accept a consensus that is not primarily their own. I might suggest the alternative of naming it Manchuria, and setting a redirect for Northeast China. If that doesn't fit the bill, I am afraid you are going to have to move up the food chain for a more definitive resolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is that you not skip that step, Cy. I've read a few ArbCom dealios, and they seem to frown on anyone coming to them if they haven't exhausted every other means of resolution. Either way you go, I wish you luck. I must say that the arguing there, even from the more...shall we say, passionate...contributors dodn't swerve too far off the path of civility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That passage in the text...

I got your message and I think you are on the right track. It would be great to get something that cites archaeologists exactly such as Liu Jing-wen (1997) or perhaps Barnes (2001). I think everybody can agree that complex societies existed in the area from archaeological evidence, but the sentence needs to be massaged into something that archaeological data can easily support such as:

The Samguk Sagi, a 12th century AD Goryeo text, indicates that Goguryeo was founded in 37 BCE by Jumong, a prince from Buyeo, although archaeological evidence clearly shows that complex chiefdoms existed in the area of Goguryeo state formation some time after 500 B.C. (Barnes 2001:7,8; Liu 1997)

It would also be nice to strengthen the claim by having another short sentence that follows up with two simple and concise examples, but more specific sources need to be located.Mumun 無文 13:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

答辯

예, 님의 이메일을 잘 받았습니다. 물론 저는 고구려를 지키는 일에 많은 노력을 줄것입니다. 하지만, 중국의 수가 너무 많고, 이겨내기가 어렵습니다. 그래도, 한번 이길수 있다고 믿고 시도 해봅시다. 우선, 한국말로 된 고구려에 대한 정보 몇계를 가져 왔습니다.

고구려

東夷相傳以爲夫餘別種, 故言語法則多同.<후한서85-고구려>

東夷舊語以爲夫餘別種, 言語諸事, 多與夫餘同.<삼국지30-고구려>

言語諸事, 多與夫餘同, 其性氣衣服有異.<양서54-고구려>(「남사」에도 같은 내용)

“(고구려는)… 동이족들이 서로 전하기를 부여의 별종인 까닭에 언어와 법제가 많이 같다고 한다.”

“동이의 옛말에 부여의 별종이라 해서 언어와 여러 일들이 부여와 더불어 많이 같다.”

“언어와 여러 일들이 부여와 많이 같은데, 그 성질과 의복은 다른 데가 있다.”

   * 옥저

言語食飮居處衣服有似句驪.<후한서85-동옥저>

其言語與句麗大同, 時時小異.<삼국지30-옥저>

“(동옥저는) 언어, 음식, 거처, 의복이 고구려와 비슷하다.”

“그 언어는 고구려와 더불어 대부분 같고 때때로 약간 다르다.”

   * 예

耆舊自謂與句驪同種, 言語法俗大抵相類.<후한서85-예>

言語法俗大抵與句麗同.<삼국지30-예>

“(예의) 늙은이들이 스스로 이르기를 고구려와 같은 종족이라 한다. 언어와 법속이 대개 서로 유사하다.”

“언어와 법속이 대개 고구려와 같다”

   * 삼한

弁辰與辰韓雜居, 城郭衣服皆同, 言語風俗有異.<후한서85-한>

弁辰與辰韓雜居, 亦有城郭. 衣服居處與辰韓同. 言語法俗相似.<삼국지30-한>

“변진과 진한은 섞여 산다. 성곽과 의복은 다 같은데 언어와 풍속은 다른 점이 있다.”

“변진과 진한은 섞여 사는데. 또한 성곽이 있다. 의복과 거처는 진한과 더불어 같고 언어와 법속이 서로 비슷하다.”

   * 백제, 신라

語言待百濟而後通焉.<양서54-신라>(「남사」에도 같은 내용)

今言語服章略與高驪同, 行不張拱, 拜不申足則異.<양서54-백제>

言語服章略與高麗同.<남사79-백제>

“(신라의) 언어는 백제를 기다린 뒤에야 (중국과) 통한다”

(이 부분을 곡해해서 신라와 고구려는 언어가 통하지 않았다고 주장하는 잘못된 견해도 있다)

“지금에 언어와 복장은 대략 고구려와 같은데, 다닐 때 두 손을 맞잡지 않고 절할 때 다리를 펴지 않는 점이 다르다.”

“언어와 복장은 대략 고구려와 같다.”

   * 읍루(물길,말갈이라고도 하죠...)

其人形似夫餘, 言語不與夫餘句麗同. <삼국지30-읍루>

?婁, 古肅愼之國也. 在夫餘東北千餘里, 東濱大海, 南與北沃沮接, 不知其北所極. 土地多山險. 人形似夫餘, 而言語各異. <후한서85-읍루>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 舊肅愼國也. … 言語獨異.<위서100-물길국>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 一曰靺鞨. … 言語獨異.<북사94-물길국>

“그 사람 생김새는 부여와 비슷한데, 언어는 부여, 고구려와 더불어 같지 않다.”

“읍루는 옛 숙신의 나라이다. 부여의 동북 천여리에 있다.

동쪽으로는 큰 바다에 이르고 남으로 옥저와 인접해 있는데 그 북쪽 끝은 알 수 없다.

토지는 험준한 산이 많고 사람 생김새는 부여와 비슷한데, 언어는 각각 다르다.”

“물길국은 고구려의 북쪽에 있는데 옛날 숙신국이다. … 언어는 유독 (고구려와) 다르다.”

“물길국은 고구려의 북쪽에 있는데 ‘말갈’이라고도 한다. … 언어가 유독 (고구려와) 다르다.”

이상이 중국측의 기록들입니다.

그리고 남제시대때 만들어진 양직공도(梁職貢圖)에 의하면...

(백제인: "마한에서 시작하여 고구려와 언어 및 풍습이 비슷하고, 중국의 요서지방을 차지했다"는 설명이 있다)(이외에 양서에는 백제인은 키가 크고 의복이 깨끗하다는 기록이 있다)

(倭人: 위의 백제인을 그린 그림은 당당하고 귀족적인 데 반해, 왜인은 옷도 제대로 걸치지 못한 초라하고 왜소한 모습으로 그려져 있다)

   * 고구려가 왜 한국사인가?

①고구려의 구성종족은 예맥족

고구려를 세운 민족은 맥족(貊族)으로 흔히 예맥(濊貊)족으로 알려진 족속이다. 『후한서』고구려전을 보면 "(고)구려(句麗)는 일명 맥이(貊耳)이다. 따로 별종이 있어 작은 물가에 의지하여 살아 소수맥(小水貊)이라 불린다. 좋은 활을 생산하는데 맥궁이 바로 이것이다" 후한서를 보면 알 수 있듯 고구려를 세운 종족은 맥족임을 알 수 있다. 예맥족은 고대 동이족(東夷族)의 일파로 화하족(현 중국민족)과는 근본적으로 다른 민족이었다. 동이족은 '동방의 큰 활을 쏘는 민족'이라는 뜻으로 고대 중국인들은 동이족을 두려워하고 군자의 나라라고 경외해왔다. 동이족의 일파 중 고이(高夷)라는 종족이 있는데 혹자는 이 고이가 고구려의 전신이라고 주장한다. 예맥족은 예족과 맥족으로 구성된 종족인데, 예족은 고조선과 신라를 세운 종족이고, 맥족은 부여와 고구려, 백제를 세운 종족으로 이들이 한민족의 직계조상이라고 한다. 중국인을 형성한 종족인 화하족과 고구려 아니 한민족을 형성한 동이족 좁게는 예맥족은 본래 근본이 다른 민족이므로 고구려사는 중국의 역사가 아닌 우리의 역사라 할 수 있다.

②중국 동북부와 한반도는 같은 문화권

고구려가 위치한 중국 동북부와 한반도 중북부 지방은 본래 같은 문화권이었다. 고조선의 유물인 비파형 동검과 미송리식 토기가 만주지역과 한반도 중북부 지역에 출토된다는 것과, 한반도 중북부와 만주지역의 고구려 성터 유적이 중국의 것과 별개라는 점, 고조선의 준왕이 마한에 망명하여 마한의 왕이 되었다는 점에서 알 수 있듯이 당시 만주지역과 한반도는 비슷한 생활 문화권이었다는 것이고 이러한 전통이 삼국시대에 계승되었음을 알 수 있다.

③삼국의 역사를 기록한 삼국사기

우리나라의 역사를 기록한 1차 사료를 꼽자면 삼국사기를 들 수 있다.(하지만 본인은 삼국사기 보다 한단고기를 우리역사의 1차 사료로 들고 싶다) 삼국사기는 고구려, 백제, 신라 삼국의 역사를 기록한 사서이다. 만약 고구려가 우리의 역사가 아니라면 굳이 삼국사기가 고구려의 역사를 기록했을까? 우리의 역사이기 때문에 우리의 역사서에 기록된 것이다. 중국인들은 이런 기본적인 상식조차 모르는 무식한 인간들인가? 고구려의 역사를 남겼다는 것은 당시 우리민족은 고구려사를 우리의 역사라 인식했음을 알 수 있다.

④삼국의 언어는 기본적으로 비슷

고구려와 백제 또는 고구려와 신라의 사신이 서로 통역했다는 기록이 없고, 또한 고구려 장수왕 때 백제 개로왕의 신하인 재증걸루와 고이만년이 고구려와 백제의 전쟁이 일어나기 전 투항했다는 것과 도림이 쉽게 개로왕에 접근했다는 점, 신라 거칠부가 고구려를 염탐하러 갔을 때 아무 꺼리낌 없이 의사소통을 했다는 점에서 삼국의 언어는 기본적으로 비슷했다고 보여진다. 물론 우리나라 지방마다 사투리가 있는 걸로 보아 삼국의 언어는 지금보다 복잡한 사투리를 사용했을 가능성이 있지만, 기본적으로 언어의 뿌리가 같기 때문에 의사소통에 지장이 없었을 것으로 주정된다.

『후한서 권 85 고구려』

"동이족들은 서로 전하기를 부여의 별종인 까닭에 언어와 법제가 많이 같다고 한다"

『삼국지 권30 고구려』

"동이의 옛 말에 부여의 별종이라 하여 언어와 여러 일들이 부여와 더불어 같다"

『양서 권54 고구려』

"언어와 여러 일들이 부여와 같은데 그 성질과 의복은 다른데가 있다"

『후한서 권85 동옥저』

"언어, 음식, 거처, 의복이 고구려와 같다"

『삼국지 권30 옥저』

"그 언어는 고구려와 더불어 대부분 같고 때때로 약간 다르다"

『후한서 권85 예』

"늙은이들이 스스로 이르기를 고구려와 같은 종족이라 한다. 언어와 법속이 대개 서로 유사하다"

『삼국지 권30 예』

"언어와 법속이 대개 고구려와 같다"

『양서 권54 신라』

"(신라의) 언어는 백제를 기다린 뒤에야 (중국과) 통한다"

『양서 권54 백제』

"지금의 언어와 복장은 대개 고구려와 같은데 다닐 때 두 손을 맞잡지 않고 절할 때, 다리를 펴지 않는 점이 다르다"

『남사 권79 백제』

"언어와 복장은 대개 고구려와 같다"

중국 사서들을 보면 예, 맥, 부여, 고구려, 옥저, 진한, 변한, 백제, 신라의 언어가 같다고 나오고, 물길, 읍루가 상이하다고 기록되어 있다. 중국 사서들을 종합해 볼 때 삼국의 언어는 기본적으로 그 뿌리가 비슷하므로 의사소통에 별 지장이 없었음을 추측할 수 있다.

⑤고구려와 수, 당의 전쟁

만약, 고구려가 중국의 일개 지방정권이라면 고구려와 수, 당의 전쟁은 일어나지 않았을 것이다. 설사 전쟁이 일어났다고 해도 113만 대군, 50만 대군 등 엄청난 군사를 동원하지 않았을 것이다. 하지만 고구려와 수, 당이 싸운 것, 그것도 엄청난 군사를 동원하여 싸웠다는 것은 고구려가 중국의 일개 지방정권이 아닌 당당한 자주국가, 중국과 대등한 제국(帝國)이었음을 뜻한다. 일찍이 당 태종은 고구려를 자기(당)들과 비슷한 수준의 학문을 지닌 문명국이라고 스스로 밝힌 바 있다. 이는 고구려가 중국에 뒤지지 않는 대국임을 말해준다. 만약 고구려가 중국의 지방정권이라면 중국과 대등한 수준의 학문을 구사할 수 있었을까? 영류왕 때 당의 사신으로 고구려에 파견된 이의침이 고구려왕이 부르자 엎드려 기어가서 절하고 다시 엎드려 국서를 전했다고 한다. 이와 같은 기록은 고구려가 중국의 일개 지방정권이 아닌 중원을 통일한 수, 당 조차 두려워 한 대제국(大帝國)이었음을 알려준다.

⑥고구려가 활동한 시기 중국의 고구려 인식

고구려사가 어느 나라의 역사에 귀속되는지에 중요한 것은 고구려가 활동하던 시기 주변 국가들의 인식이라고 할 수 있다. 고구려가 활동한 시기 중국 역사서를 보면 고구려를 자국의 역사라 포함하지 않았다. 그들은 고구려를 백제, 신라, 가야, 부여와 함께 따로 동이전이라는 항목에 분류, 기술하였다. 이것은 그 당시 중국인들의 고구려 인식을 보여주는 증거로 이들은 고구려를 자국(중국)과 같은 민족이라기보다는 동이족, 정확히는 백제, 신라와 같은 민족으로 인식했음을 보여준다.

⑦고구려 중심의 천하관

고구려는 중국과는 다른 독자적인 천하관을 가지고 있었다. 만약 고구려가 중국의 일개 지방정권이라면 고구려는 자국 중심의 천하관을 가질 수 없을 것이다. 그러나 고구려가 자국 중심의 천하관을 가졌다는 것은 고구려가 중국의 종속국이 아닌 중국과 대등한 국가임을 뜻한다. 고구려 천하관 내에서 고구려는 북연, 백제, 신라, 가야, 부여, 동부여, 거란, 말갈, 실위, 지두우, 왜 등에게 조공을 받고, 이들에게 분봉을 내려주는 황제국(=태왕국)과 같다. 고구려와 수, 당의 대결은 고구려 중심의 천하관과 중국 중심의 천하관 간의 대결이라 할 수 있다. 게다가 고구려가 독자적인 연호를 사용했다는 것(광개토대왕: 영락, 장수태왕: 건흥)을 보면 고구려가 자주국임을 증명한다 할 수 있다.

고구려의 천하관과 중국의 천하관은 상당히 다르다. 중국은 자신들의 천하관만 인정하는데 비해 고구려는 자국의 천하관과 함께, 다른 지역의 천하관과 공존한다는 생각을 가지고 있었다. 즉, 고구려는 고구려 지역인 1차 천하관, 고구려의 속국들까지 포함하는 2차 천하관, 그리고 병립하는 몇 개의 천하로 구성되는 동아시아 전체를 3차 천하관으로 본 것이다. 다시 말해서, 고구려는 자신들의 천하관을 독자적으로 세움과 동시에 다른 지역의 천하관을 인정하는 다원주의적 성격을 보여준다. 그러므로 고구려야말로 진정한 천하관을 가진 천자국이라 할 수 있다.

⑧단군신화와 추모왕(동명성왕)신화의 모티브가 비슷

우리민족의 국조인 단군왕검(檀君王儉)의 탄생을 기록한 단군 신화와 고구려의 시조 추모왕의 탄생을 기록한 추모(주몽)설화를 보면 두 신화의 모티브가 비슷함을 볼 수 있다. 단군 신화에서 단군은 천신족(환웅)과 지신족(웅녀)의 결합, 즉 하느님의 아들인 환웅과 지신 웅녀(땅의 어원을 곰으로 해석하는 학자도 있다)의 결합으로 탄생했다. 즉 이주민과 토착민의 융합으로 단군, 즉 조선이 건국된 것과 같이 추모는 천신족과 수신족 정확히 말하면 천제(天帝)의 아들 해모수와 수신(水神) 하백의 딸 유화의 결합으로 탄생하였는데 추모가 성장해서 부여를 도망쳐(이주세력) 졸본곡에 이르러 재사, 무골, 묵거(토착세력)등과 연합하여 고구려를 세운다는 모티브가 단군신화와 일치한다는 점에서 고구려와 고조선은 많은 연관이 있음을 보여준다.

⑨고구려 멸망 후 보장왕이 조선군왕(朝鮮君王)에 임명

고구려 멸망 후 당은 고구려 유민들에게 소위 기미정책이라며, 고구려 유민들의 저항을 분쇄시키기 위해 보장왕을 조선군왕에 임명하여 고구려 유민들을 다스리게 하였다. 여기서 당이 보장왕을 조선군왕에 임명했다는 것에 유의해야 한다. 망한 고구려의 임금에게 고려군왕이 아닌 조선군왕의 칭호를 내렸다는 것은 고구려가 고구려 이전에 존재했던 단군조선과 상당한 연관성이 있다는 것을 보여준다. 이는 적어도 고구려가 고조선의 후신이라고 당시 당나라의 사람들이 인식했던 것으로 추측되어진다.

기본틀은 퍼온것이구요. 제가 중간에 내용추가나 수정을 했습니다.

추가적으로 몇개만 더 붙이자면

고구려가 온돌을 사용햇다는것도 우리나라 라는 이유중 하나죠.

확실히 온돌를 사용했다는 기록은 없으나 중국의 한 역사서에 고구려가 밑에 구덩이를 만들어 불을 떼운다 라는 말에서 온돌을 사용했다는걸 짐작하게 해줍니다.

제가 위의 글을 번역하여, 고구려 토크 폐이지에 올리겠습니다. 하지만, 몇가지 바꿀점이 있다면, 꼭 알려주십시오. (그리고, 저의 서툴은 한국말을 용서 해주십시오. 미국에 너무 오래 살아서...)

하여튼, 부탁드리고요, 같이 한번 해내 봅시다. 대단히 감사합니다. Amphitere 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

위 자료는 원래 제가 Amphitere님께 드린 자료인데요. 자료에 부족한 것이 있습니까? 꼭 알려주세요. 그리고 서문에 중국학자들 의견이 있는것은 중립적이지 못하다고 생각합니다. 고쳐야 할 부분 같습니다. 또, 제가 영어를 잘 못해서 직접적인 주장을 내세우는 것은 힘듭니다. 그래서 저는 Amphitere님께 자료를 드리는 것 밖에는 달리 어찌할 도리가 없습니다. 이해해주시고요,아무튼 잘 해봅시다. 그럼 이만... --Korea history 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchuria

I've unprotected the template, but if revert warring continues, I will indefinitely protect it until a definite compromise has been reached. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you now have the criteria. If the chimps cannot stop edit-warring, you might want to consider violating them if they break 3RR. If their behavior is disruptive, and they are clearly the instigators, you should opt for an RfC to begin with, naming both of them as disruptive. I can almost guarantee that they will simmer down when faced with being blocked for months. Give it a try before going to ArbCom. RfCs are a valid path to ArbCom. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was really an unpleasant post link. Had Assault11 been reported at the time of the post, I have no doubt he would have been banned immediately and likely permanently. That he did not retract the statement immediately is totally uncool. All of us have made mistakes here in Wikipedia (I know I have). So it's going to be important to try and identify those folk from both sides who aren't seeking a resolution, but are instead only seeking to institute their point of view. That's called POV-pushing, and its totally unacceptable here in WP. Quietly assemble the info and present it to RfC (which can also be about content, but you have too may people disrupting the editorial process, and that static needs to be addressed first). Do not threaten folk with the RfC, just tell them that things aren't working out, and if a compromise cannot be found, then the next step needs to be taken - and let them mull over that prospect for a while. Those people who have not conducted themselves well in WP will - if they have more than three brain cells that aren't fighting - realize that they will not be looked upon favorably in either an RfC or ArbCom. I can tell you that ArbCom will not care about the merits of one argument over the other. They will only look at the behavior of both sides, and toast to a cinder those folk who have been lacking in proper etiquette and policy. This is because these people gum up the works of Wikipedia. Editorial dissent is okay; edit-warring is not. Discussions about different edits is okay; uncivil attack posts are NEVER okay. Let me know if you need a third voice to support the RfC or ArbCom.
And you were smart to bring in Tariqabjotu. He is pretty much on the money, erring on the side of caution each time. When he acts, his reasoning is air-tight. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom certainly wouldn't take the case, since it's a content dispute. The only way it might be accepted is if there was massive revert warring with personal attacks. I think the template has been reasonably compromised at the moment, and I can't decipher why everyone's still grumbling. As for Assault and Naus, you should encourage them to mediate. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 19:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you filed the RfC on the G rover thing instead of Manchuria, but Daniel was right about the stale thing. As I had mentioned before, the user's behaviro really counts in these things, so being blocked or swearing or losing (or misplacing) your temper doesn't help you outshine those you would prefer to put the admin spotlight on. Read the RfC closely. Daniel did encourage you to file something that was not stale. You need to act in the page as pure as the driven snow - keep your cool, no matter what. If another user claims that he has video of your mom doing particularly unpleasant things with a pack of wolves, you MUST not lose your temper (you would simply report them, and they would get banned). Be polite, and stay on target. Eventually, people like this destroy themselvs by alienating too many other editors. Karma is the ultimate, unforgiing bee-otch, I have learned. If you want to re-file in Manchuiria, go ahead and do so, but keep it professional. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

Then what should we do? We can't just stay around and wait for the CPOV users to take over. We should think of a plan or something. 제발 어떤 대책을 세위주십시오. 뮈, 일단 한국 사용자들의 수를 늘린다던지, 고구려가 한국사라는걸 어떻게 보장할지... 저도 잘 모르겠내요. 하여튼, 생각이 나시면 알려 주십시오. 감사합니다. Amphitere 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:On Wikiquette alert

You are right in that we should take a broader perspective on the article. It would be better to describe the nature of tributary systems with imperial China and how imperial China viewed their "tributaries".

The only problem is that I'm almost certain Assault11 will delete everything unless it says something like "Goguryeo was a Chinese tributary all the time". He likes only the current version.

I'm considering to request help from somewhere else. Unfortunately, most administrators do not really know about the subject so they are reluctant to comment.

Personally, I'm displeased with Nlu's handling of this subject. He is the only admin I know who has a good knowledge about Goguryeo, etc. yet he doesn't do much to stop Assault or change the article that everybody can agree on. Good friend100 00:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I take me comment back about Nlu. I wasn't aware of the RfC filed on Assault, thanks. Good friend100 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:History of Manchuria.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

POV-Fork

Youneed to involve an admin at this point. I'm pretty sure that the user doing this isn't really going to either listen to me or play by the rules. Try Tariqabjotu, as he is somewhat more aware of the situation than some other admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV forking on template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is attempting to circumvent the majority consensus on template:History of Manchuria by replacing it with a POV fork he created, template:History of Northeast China. I have nominated this template for Template for Deletion and informed most editors involved in the dispute, but another editor has suggested bringing this issue to you. Can you please look into this matter should you find the time? Thank you. Cydevil38 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why someone recommended that you contact me, although I remember I might have fielded a request related to this template a couple months ago. The nomination for deletion (and subsequent contacting of involved editors) seemed like the right thing to do. Anyway, I've commented on the TfD, although I'm really not involved with the template. -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this ID is a sock puppet of another ID

According to wikipedia records, this ID was created "23:25, 30 March 2007", when disputations about Goguryeo, Goguryeo-China wars, Template:History of Manchuria were at heat. It is unethical to create sock puppets to disrupt wikipedia. Therefore, I will not be polite towards this kind of ID (although I will always follow wikipedia rules). Any activity done by this ID is considered potentially malicious.--Jiejunkong 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am matching this ID's behavior with a pool of suspected IDs. Once I have reduced the pool to a reasonably small set, I will file sock puppet check requests to system admins.--Jiejunkong 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes to you, for your nationalistic bias. Cydevil38 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a checkuser request against you at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikimachine. BTW, as to me, I don't have any sock puppet, so your "Same goes to you" doesn't work. This sentence also shows that you've implied that you are a sock puppet---you don't even bother to deny, but you counterattack on the challenger's morality.--Jiejunkong 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also about your "nationalist" charges, my personal judgement is: if I am an ordinary user, then you are a nationalist; if I am a nationalist, then you are an ultranationalist.--Jiejunkong 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiejunkong, you suspected Cydevil38 as a sockppuppet but i dont think this ID is one. According to me Cydevil38 former ID was Cydevil but the former ID is not used anymore since March 23rd. Therfore Cydevil38 uses is allowed Whlee 11:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template:History of Manchuria

I've seen your template and I'd disagree with it. Its title is anachronistic and its usage is virtually nil under historical context, so it's not appropriate for a template on history. Also, it's overly long. Manchuria is the most common term used under historical context, which has been proven by google books search, and it's common sense for people who often read about the region's history that Manchuria is the most common term and using "Russia" or "China" to refer to this region in relation to historical entities is absurd. Cydevil38 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiejunkong states: Wikipolicy WP:NCGN is aware of the controversy in using old names, as it states "in a modern context" as a constraint. And i can only be agree with that, up to now Jiejunkong and I haven't found a suitable title yet this is therefore a temporary title. Concerning Manchuria (based on my sources this term started to be used by Europeans since 1817), i think that term is still commonly used if i find recent reliable and official maps then Manchuria prevail if not mentionned it would become difficult to prevent revert edit wars like now. RegardsWhlee 08:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations : Here is the List of languages by number of native speakers if you are able to find official documents (like map written in several foreign languages not only English e.g. Spanish etc... a third-country neither China nor Korea) then your claims become stronger here is an example :

a Turkish map the uses of the term Manchuria i can't speak any Turkish word but Mançurya (phonetically become Manchurya) is easily identified.Whlee 08:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern China is just a sad excuse to continue pushing for Northeast China(previously titled Northeastern China [2] until User:Naus change it a few weeks ago), and Jiejunkong is just selectively interpreting the WP:NCGN to fit his needs. This template is on history, which means that it's written under historical context. Read the WP:NCGN, where it says If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. I have repeatedly provided evidence that under historical context(i.e. in relation to the template's contents), Manchuria is by far the most common name. If Manchuria cannot be used in modern context because "it does not exist anymore", then that post-Manchuria part of the region's history should be split off from the History of Manchuria template. WP:NCGN provides an excellent example in this regard:

*Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.[3]

It is even controversial whether "Northeast China" is the "single widely accepted English name in modern context", since Manchuria is also commonly used in that regard. And in historical context, Manchuria is by far the most common term to refer to that region. And could "Northeastern China" be a viable geographic term used under historical context? The major problem with this usage is that not only is it not clearly defined in authoritative sources such as dictionaries, it is also anachronistism at its worst, because "China" is a cultural region, and since this cultural region fluctuated considerably throughout history, this "northeastern" China constantly changes geography-wise. These users are just trying to push for a sinocentric term disregarding the opinion of others. Many editors have already expressed their preference for Manchuria and opposed Northeast China. Jiejunkong et al should just learn to live with compromises and opinions of others. Cydevil38 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to discuss with him directly so as to find a compromise between both parties (pro-Northeast China and anti-Northeast China) because My low level in English proficiency do not allow me to strenghthen my arguments based on reliable sources. When i write in English peple often misundertstand what i'd lke to say. If you want i can help you to bring them so as to fight against strong chauvinism/Nationalism with reliable sources. As i told to everybody who are involved i'm not interested in fruitless revert edit wars, this is not my business, i'm more interested in finding valuable information on the web so as to enlagre/broad Wikipedian and other users intested in Korea and its neighbourghood countries.Whlee 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on your proposal for changes to the template

Can you maybe cut down on some of the contents? It has way too many entries and when it is actually put on articles, it will clog it significantly. I think it has a lot of extraneous elements to it, such as ethnic groups. You don't have to include all ethnic groups into the template, perhaps just some of the ethnic groups that had a significant role in Manchuria's history. You can create another template on all the ethnic groups of the region, or other regions, such as Northeast Asia.

As i wrote on the talk page there are ethnic groups having a significant role in Manchuria's history and those who didn't.

Same thins with Chinese dynasties like such as Western Jin Dynasty (265-317), Former Yan, Former Qin, Later Yan, Northern Yan.

Also, don't mind too much about the title of the template. Jiejunkong and Wikipokemon continues to dispute the title, but so far have provided no evidence to their claims and ignores the recommended protocol set forth by WP:NCGN. They should just learn to work by consensus rather than personal preferences. If they think they can establish Northeast China as the appropriate name for the template, they should do so per the recommended protocol from WP:NCGN and file for a Request for Move to reach a conesnsus. Otherwise, don't mind the title, just focus on the contents. Cydevil38 02:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always focused on the contents, we also should have to add entries like Korean-Jurchen wars too once their quality become acceptable but that article is still a stub one. Manchuria have Chinese, Korean, Jurchens(Manchus) and Tungusic influences. That the reason why its history is quite complex. See ya around! Whlee 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to the rule breaker

According to WP:NCGN: "Use modern English names for titles and in articles." This is the rule for geographic names. Therefore, if the context is "located in", which means strictly geographic context, then the modern English names should be used. Rule enforcement don't need to go through consensus, because wikirules are considered consensus.--Jiejunkong 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiejunkong, just shut up. Cydevil, admin Bibliomaniac38 agreed w/ keeping "(Northeast China)" at the Manchuria template. So don't revert there. (Wikimachine 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have physical proofs that User:Cydevil38 is a malicious liar, see talk page of Goguryeo. This user's agreement with somebody is not an agreement to me.--Jiejunkong 04:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is the user cydevil38 constantly re-editing my addition to the page? I've provided a new section titled "Goguryeo History Documentation". I believe this new section is very valuable to interesting parties who wants to find original references of Goguryeo hisotry. Isn't a fact that most of history references of Goguryeo was documented by Chinese historians? what's wrong to let people know this fact?

Please discuss these changes in the talk page and establish consensus. Your edits are biased and not very helpful to readers' understanding of Goguryeo. Cydevil38 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

on ending the current disruptions

It seems that Jiejunkong becomes quite upset and is easily provoked every time you address the user directly. I recommend that all of us actively attempt to defuse the current tense situation. After all, the current reckless path of the malicious aggressor is eventually going to result in a long block. In the interest of creating a positive atmosphere for editing at Goguryeo, we should all ignore and/or slow revert any bad behaviours. But we need to understand that the more we argue with the user, the more disruptive s/he will be. Don't directly address the user unless one has to deliver a legitimate warning. We should realize that this user is an attention-seeker: one look at Jiejunkong's "contributions" shows that his/her behaviour has really devolved into nothing but malicious pestering, personal attacks, and trolling on article talk pages and user talk pages. Let's pity the user who seems to believe that other editors are plotting against him/her. This user is a drag on the resources and bandwidth of Wikipedia -- let's ignore baiting and bad stuff and slow revert if we must. Ignoring the user except to revert and/or report bad behaviour is justified because the user has consistently displayed an unwillingness to edit according to policies and guidelines and has displayed bad faith in almost every single one of the user's edits. Mumun 無文 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request of Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

research

Can you conduct some research about someone named aranbul? this computer im using has no Korean text, so it's spelled something like this : al- an-bool. He was supposed to be the man that had a dream, and advised hae buru to move from Bukbuyeo to dongbuyeo, according to the Samgukyusa. there was no mention of him in other history books. thanks.Odst 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about him? Should someone create one? Odst 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive editing in Wandu Mountain City

Your disruptive editing in Wandu Mountain City is reported by me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Cydevil38.27s_disruptive_editing_in_Wandu_Mountain_City. In addition to changing the contents to your original research (which is via blanking, i.e., removing proper contents such as Wandu Mountain City and Guonei city were co-capitals. Otherwise, according to your writeup, Wandu Mountain City is the 2nd capital of Goguryeo, but Guowei City is also the 2nd capital. What are you writing there?). In the history, Wandu Mountain City was built as a mountain fortress of Guonei City at year 3, and named as Wandu at year 198 for the purpose of being a new capital (because the capital Guonei City was destroyed by Gongsun Clan at that time). At year 209, the capital was switched from Guonei City to Wandu Mountain City, but typically they are treated as co-capitals, thus they are both 2nd capital of Goguryeo. In present-day China, the historical remain is normally translated into English as "City site of Wandushan]", which means it is a historical site, not a city of residence anymore. --Jiejunkong 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!

I'll try to keep it cool, but he is really annoying. Odst 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is bestowed upon Cydevil38 for his steadfast and dedicated effort in assisting Wikiproject Korea. 71.132.107.129 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of Hwando (fortress) from Wandu Mountain City

The article Hwando (fortress) you created today is believed to be a POV fork of Wandu Mountain City. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hwando_(fortress).--Jiejunkong 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one ultranationalist at a time

I agree with your message to me on ANI. The user that is under discussion at ANI is not the only ultranationalist. Their are more and they can be found on all of the CKJ articles and represent all three countries (CKJ). IMHO, even a couple of administrators have been corrupted by these nationalist fights and were involved in a patently unfair and utterly immoral renaming of the so-called Liancourt Rocks article. However, the subject of the ANI thread is the Bon Ami 100, and in the interests of keeping on topic, I didn't mention the other offensive editors. All nationalists will be swept out, should be swept out. We need to do this one user at a time, though. As soon as the opportunity arises, I will push for bans against so-called nationalist Chinese users and so-called nationalist Japanese users. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Honest editors who are interested in all three countries need to be left in peace to build those article into FA status pieces. We need to showcase the history and culture of China, Korea, and Japan in a reasonable way -- the last two or three years have not been reasonable, to say the least. Both of us understand that a large number of articles associated with Korean history are controversial, and so we should expect to sometimes have content disagreements. But -- simultaneous edit warring across 3-5 articles, coordinated disruption (meatpuppetry), race baiting, intimidation, sockpuppetry, threats, holding article talk pages hostage, belittling and harrying of fellow editors has become the norm in so many articles related to China, Korea, and Japan. It must stop now.

I mentioned on ANI that on Friday Jimbo was talking about getting tough with long term disruptors. They are a drag on the 'pedia.

You mentioned Koguryo. Nationalism of the kind practiced here is highly disrespectful and offensive to the ancestors of Koguryo and it must stop. This highly racialized atmosphere is ruining us and makes China, Korea, and Japan all look foolish. Wikipedia is not a battleground...not a battleground. Cheers, 74.12.75.68 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Jung-geun

You should know that a citation you introduced to this article is being challenged.[4] Your input, hopefully as discussion on the talk page, is welcome. Pairadox (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:History of Manchuria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I see that you're a Korean (south?) user, from your userpage. Is there any reason why you oppose any mentioning of Northeast China? Most Chinese don't have much problems with Koreans, so I'm not sure why you have such a big problem over the preferred name of our region. I hope you realize where us Chinese are coming from, because it is a big issue for us you know. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

Well, I don't know. I just don't understand the Japanese editor who is obviously some sock of somebody lying about my deletion of the unreferenced allegations. The mention of the South Korean government's advocates is clearly typical falsification to make it WP:SYNTHESIS. Well, are you going to make article of Anti-Korean sentiment in China and Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan?--Caspian blue (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Gaogouli County

I have adjusted this article to make it look at least partially like it is a part of the English Wikipedia by removing most of the Korean language material that is not required at this pedia. I have reverted the redirect because it requires discussion on the talk page. I note that you and another editor are involved in a heated set of edits. I trust that discussion without attack can occur on the talk page - but if not then I will block for edit warring as necessary.--VS ^talk 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also note it would be particularly helpful if you were to include an appropriate edit summary in any further adjustments that you make here. That will make my job (and a couple of other admins also watching) much easier to assess your good edits. With thanks --VS ^talk 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo Reverts

Knock it off... WangKon936 (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiman

Hi Cydevil38, just a little reminder to let you know that a requested move has started on Wei Man [5]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Kuebie (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cydevil3800. You have new messages at MacMed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Supersentai sockpuppetry

You have new messages

Hello, Cydevil3800. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supersentai sockpuppetry

Hello, Cydevil3800. You have new messages at MacMed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Samurang merger

I think you should go ahead with the merger of Samurang into the Haidon Gumdo page. Samurang experiences constant vandalism. Pathetic attempts at revisionist history..--Leonffs(talk) 2:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

Hi, Cydevil38. Could you come to Talk:Joseon Dynasty and join discussions on Joseon Dynasty's sovereignty? A User:Jpatokal are I do not agree on the issue and I think 3rd opinion from editors would be good in the current circumstance. I need more opinion from editors who know Korean history. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseon Tongsinsa

Hi, you might be busy, but I am also very busy these days. However, this is serious, so I really need help. As User:Tenmei edits Korea-Japan history articles, Joseon Tongsinsa, Taejo of Joseon and Korean diplomats, he ignores Korean naming conventions and names, and removed contents. He also inserted unrelated or trivia and very old outdated sources to articles. So please join the discussion of Joseon Tongsinsa and Taejo of Joseon. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean References

Yoon, Ji-Won. Research of the Foreign Dancing Costumes: From Han to Sui-Tang Dynasty, The Korean Society of Costume, v. 56, 57-72. 2006
Kim, Sohyun. A Study on the Costume of Khotan, The Korean Society of Costume, v. 34, 169-183. 1997.
原田淑人. 唐代の服飾. 東洋文庫, 1970.
김소현. 호복: 실크로드의 복식. 민속원, 2003.

Hi Cydevil38, you've put some of these sources in the Banbi pages. However, i can't seem to find them available online. Can you find some English or Chinese sources to back the statement up? Since the article is about Chinese clothing, most Chinese editors can't read Hangul. If you manage to find the sources online then please link it to me or if it's a book then pull the lines out. It takes time to validates foreign sources in an English Wiki. Thanks --LLTimes (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)--LLTimes (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask for verification by other Korean editors if you wish. The articles can be found with due diligence, though older ones may not be available for online. Please make some effort to find them online before you question my good faith.

http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/IS_mvpopo213L.do?ResultTotalCNT=12&pageNo=1&pageSize=10&method=view&poid=ksc&kojic=BSHHBV&sVnc=v56n3s102&id=4&setId=51881&iTableId=4&iDocId=350284&sFree= Cydevil38 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link above links to a "Internal Server Error" page. [Research of the Foreign Dancing Costumes: From Han to Sui-Tang Dynasty] talks about Dancing costumes that was adopted however neither Banbi nor Beizi are dancing costumes and the page to the source give by casperian doesn't mention banbi or beizi. [Kim, Sohyun. A Study on the Costume of Khotan, The Korean Society of Costume, v. 34, 169-183. 1997.] again wasn't found when goggled. [原田淑人. 唐代の服飾. 東洋文庫, 1970.] or [김소현. 호복: 실크로드의 복식. 민속원, 2003.] doesn't specify a page that the information regards to banbi or beizi is on or provide a english source. You cite these sources and you can't provide them and ask me to ask other korean wikipedian to provide them? do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Please provide a findable source and preferably Chinese or English which regarding a "Chinese" clothing that Chinese Wikipedia would able to read. otherwise i'll have to remove your citation as invalid --LLTimes (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some clothings adopted from Central Asia.[6][7] [8][9][10][11] [12] [13][14]and this is the dance clothing adopted from Central ASia [15] They were largely adopted by Tang Dynasty and fused with native elements and were called 호복 (胡服) Hufu/hobok to make a distinction. P.s if the picture is from Baidu and doesn't show up, just highlight the URL and press enter again. --LLTimes (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are academic sources. You find them in the library, not google. You may ask other Korean editors for verification if you doubt my good faith. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the books, at least specify a page? ==" --LLTimes (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a library at the time. It shouldn't be too hard to find however, so you may ask other Korean editors for verification if you doubt my good faith. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay please do that! and the books (not academic sources) wasn't paged. --LLTimes (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it necessary at the time, and unfortunately I'm out of the country at the moment. I will be back in a few months, then I can provide the specific page number then, but for the moment please be patient. If you can't bear the hiatus, you may ask other Korean editors for verification. It wouldn't be too hard to find, and that Korean traditional clothing is of dualistic lineage is widely accepted and thus sources backing it up is more or less abundant in academic sources. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However you're being a little hypocritical here, "An, Myung Sook, 1998" wasn't a good enough source and i have the right to remove it since it wasn't paged. Last time i used the source in other article, you claim it was and i quote "None of the sources mention Korean clothing, and the third source is very poorly referenced." and you removed them [16] . If you could then i can and will. I don't want to go more into this with you but some edits of your is just contradicting. --LLTimes (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the source because I had explicit knowledge that the book was contradictory to your claims. And by poorly referenced, I meant that the source, nationmaster, was itself based on Wikipedia article. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someday people might regret their aggressive and hostilities b/c it feeds retaliation. The book is poorly referenced and it is not a reliable source. Example, you don't want me to provide a source name "Tin, Makou, 2000" as a source to back up some of my statments right, without a proper knowledge of its legitimacy or *require* pages? According to Wiki policy, Sources missing pages are right to be questioned, further steps are require if serious. Note: the third source was actually "An, Myung Sook, 1998"--LLTimes (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten me. For one thing, it is a reliable source. It was written by two experts who specialize in Hanbok, and it's available to others. I don't currently have access to this book, so I cannot go back to find the specific page number, but I will in a couple months, so please be patient. If you can't find the patience in yourself, then please ask other Korean editors for verification. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not threats here, just your edits are pretty hostile. :) I'm just acting the way you act , no offense. I've asked CS for help. --LLTimes (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

would be appreciated at Talk:Anti-Korean sentiment in China#Anit South Korean [sic] initiated by LLTimes (talk · contribs) since you appear to be interested in China-Korea relations. --Caspian blue 20:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cydevil3800. You have new messages at Caspian blue's talk page.
Message added 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Caspian blue 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cydevil3800. You have new messages at Talk:Han Chinese clothing.
Message added 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The original Korean texts are provided, and I verified the passages regarding banbi and otehrs. However, translation is still in need. I believe that is your job. Caspian blue 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you message from user:hkwon

Hi. Thank you for your support for me in the article "kimchi". Glad to see a fellow Korean here at Wikipedia. Please let me know if you don't like any of my argument in the article kimchi (I will consider change it), or if there's anything I can help you concerning other articles. My interests here are history and food cultures, I not an expert of any fields, but maybe I can be of some help backing you up. Hkwon (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please check out [17].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI Discussion (Fut.Perf's topic ban of Hkwon)

Hello. 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.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recently created article

Hi Cydevil. Just here to let you know of an article that was recently created. It's called Pure blood theory in Korea. It seems to be a synthesis of various news articles about ethnic nationalism in Korea. Basically a content fork of Korean nationalism. I was going to propose a deletion but I thought better to seek your expertise on the matter. I'll be waiting for your reply. Cheers. Akkies (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you want me to archive your talk page? I can do it for you if you're unable to do it yourself. Akkies (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for deletion. I'd appreciate it if you would participate. Akkies (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need your expertise

Korean ethnic nationalism is a work in progress. Feel free to join in. Kuebie (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

You are involved in an incident that is currently under discussion at WP:ANI. The relevant thread is WP:ANI#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You are involved in an incident that is currently under discussion at WP:ANI. The relevant thread is WP:ANI#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

Do you understand that when it comes to blocks, "indefinite" does not mean "infinite"? It means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur". As such, indefinite blocks are not "permanent" ... indeed, even a ban (which is significantly more permanent) can have an end point. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buyeo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Korean nationalist historiography

Hi Cydevil! As I've said a few times on the talk page, I agree that this article doesn't sound neutral yet. But you've been making a lot of good points on the talk page and Shrigley has been working on the balance problem actively and in good faith, so we're really going somewhere. I will also start to address some of the wording issues when I have more time.

Now I know that some of the current content (and perhaps general bad feelings between you and Shrigley) irks you, and I understand how frustrating this feels, but could you refrain from tagging the article in the next few days so that we can work on improving it further without having to discuss the distracting issue of tags any further? Instead of SYNTH and NPOV tags, I propose to put an {{under construction}} banner on top of the page to make it clear to readers that content is still unstable.

You will probably see this as an imperfect compromise, but that's what all compromises are about! Besides, we're not leaving the article in its current state: we're still working on it. I'm not forgetting you have issues with the article. What I'm saying is that tags are not helping to solve these issues. And you will gain more credibility if you keep helping on the talk page than if you keep reverting tags. :) I hope you will accept my proposal for the sake of the long-term improvement of the article. Thanks a lot! Madalibi (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support! By all means, tell other editors about this page. Just try to be selective: don't choose people who will focus on tags or will blank sections because they disagree with the content presented. The goal should be constructive collaboration, like much of what you've done on the talk page. If they need to vent, tell them to come to my talk page or something. We can focus on small edits, or place section drafts on the article talk page for discussion. Finally, I don't think we should touch on topics like Dokdo, the Goguryeo controversies, and the like, otherwise we'll simply have too much on our hands. And with my limited means, I don't think I can mediate between the countless editors that these topics would inevitably attract. :) Happy holidays too! Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good! I don't know Hkwon, but I've interacted with Historiographer before, and Nlu is an excellent admin and content editor, so these are good choices. And yes, I believe we can make this article an FA! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Please take care to follow the correct format style when using talk pages. You comments on Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences have become mixed with my comments. To a third party observer, it would be very confusing to read and they would not follow the thread. Please not the advice on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, I quote:

Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt an editor's long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :<small>Heading added for REASON by ~~~~</small> below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found.

Can you please correct the page so that it is clear who posted which sections. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationalist historiography

Hello, Cydevil3800. You have new messages at Madalibi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mandu (dumpling), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oldboy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unified Silla may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[it:Unificazione Silla]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panchen Lama template

If you really want to continue pursuing the "Panchen Lama of the PRC" issue, my suggestion is that the edit summaries of the templates is the wrong place for that discussion. I suggest an RfC on Talk:Panchen Lama.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Korea

Could you please go to Talk:History of Korea and engage in discussion? I don't see any edit warring that you're reverting back before (though I may just be missing it if it wasn't recent); at the moment, you appear to be the one edit warring. We just need to see your sources and engagement in the collaborative process. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the template talk page. I also suggest you take a look at the edit history of this IP address[18] Cydevil38 (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Autumn Festival / Chuseok connection

Hi, I would like your feedback on conflicting edits made at the Mid-Autumn Festival. yellowtailshark (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Zanhe (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for long-term edit-warring over a period of months, as you did at Template:History of Korea. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanbok

Greetings! You have now twice[19][20] removed the paragraph at article Hanbok. The paragraph is appropriately sourced by Baidu Baike, which is an encyclopedia and therefore falls under WP:TERTIARY. According to WP:TERTIARY:

Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.

So, if you are arguing that Baidu Baike is unreliable, you should start a conversation at the article Talk Page. This would also pay homage to WP:BRD, as you boldly removed the whole paragraph. Also, if you find some parts of the material contradictory to some other, please see Template:Contradiction-inline before blindly reverting the material.

Sorry, don't mean to sound snappy but engaging in discussion and explaining one's reasons is better than merely reverting :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu is a different kind of tertiary source, considering that it is a user-edited encyclopedia under auspices of the Chinese government. The paragraph is gravely mistaken. It calls Po something that it is not, and makes a false claim that Po it derived from ruqun. These are false claims rejected by the academic concensus. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, users are able to contribute on Baidu Baike, but they have to be registered with their real names and all entries are first to be reviewed by the site administrators. In that aspect, Baidu Baike differs greatly from Wikipedia in my opinion. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems like censorship to me, and makes it no different from Wikipedia from the perspective of reliable sources that represent academic consensus. Besides that, its contents are ridiculously inaccurate. It calls Po as "Jeogori". If you read the same article page, you can see that Jeogori is already described, accurately, as another part of the garment. Also, the claim that Hanbok is derived from "ao ming skirt" is also inaccurate. Hanbok predates clothing styles of the Ming Dynasty by more than a century. This is what it looked like during Goryeo Dynasty, around the Song Dynasty period of China: [21] Cydevil38 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Gojeoson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I hate to template you but you are refusing talk in your edit summary. You have also broken 3RR repeatedly in the past. Ogress _smash! 05:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Ogress (Result: ). Thank you. Ogress _smash! 05:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cydevil38. After reviewing the AN3 report, I've left a message for HJ Mitchell, an admin who responded to a previous edit war back in February. I think the present AN3 report might be closed with no block if you will promise to wait for talk page consensus before making any further edits regarding the history of Korea. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cydevil38, you haven't made an adequate response to the edit-warring complaint. I saw your answer at User talk:EdJohnston. If you won't promise to wait for consensus, I intend to go ahead with a block of your account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report is now closed, with a warning to you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Warned). The future is now in your hands. If you continue to make reverts about Korean history without waiting for get consensus for them, any admin may choose to block your account. My own recommendation would be a three-month block. You can avoid this result if you will simply avoid the history of Korea, or if you will be careful to get consensus before any future changes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring, and per your request

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have requested that I indefinitely block your account, to avoid a future for your account in which you are not allowed to revert again on ancient Korean history without getting consensus first. See a discussion on my talk page for background. This case originated from a complaint at WP:AN3 about long-term edit warring at Gojoseon. Any admin may lift this block if they are confident you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reject any admin lift this block. This is upon EdJohnston's conscience. Cydevil3800 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. Cydevil3800 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Shinsi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.You removed an AfD notice that clearly states, "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" both in the tag and in the metadata on the page itself when you edit. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Ogress _smash! 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cydevil38, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ogress _smash! 04:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cydevil38, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ogress _smash! 06:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cydevil38, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ogress _smash! 07:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three times? Really? 121.161.79.248 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]