User talk:Ksyrie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For discussions before 18 march 2007 see User talk:Ksyrie/Archive1

Contents

[edit] Panchen Lama

Well, the info that you added just seemed to be a repetition of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and Qoigyijabu. While I appreciate your efforts, it appeared to be redundant with the info that we already had. Khoikhoi 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But the details can already be found in the relevant articles. The Panchen Lama article is only supposed to give a general overview/summary, and not get into too many specific details. Khoikhoi 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ATT. Khoikhoi 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary, but if you insist on having it, at least make it NPOV. Khoikhoi 07:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gyopo

Yeah, on second thought your way is probably a better idea. Or what do you think of restructuring the page entirely? Instead of having a separate section header for every country, have just three section headers for chronological order: pre-Japanese colonization (talk about the Koreans in Northeast China and the Russian Far East), during the Japanese colonization period (more Koreans in Northeast China, Koreans in Japan, Koreans in Sakhalin), then post-division of Korea (USA, Latin America, and then China). Or got any other ideas? And thanks for finding that article, was interesting to read. Cheers, cab 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ksyrie for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wikimachine 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see this as an attempt by me to infuriate you. I'm unlike all other KPOV editors you've seen. But, I was quite surprised when both of you replied to my posts within 5 min of my editing 2 times (to my 2 posts), alternating in order. (Wikimachine 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
If that's the case, I'm really sorry. Once the sock puppet case is closed, I'll take time to apologize formally. (Wikimachine 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
But please be understanding. I'm very weary of my experience with sock puppets @ my disputes against JPOV editors (i.e. talk:Dokdo). I'm also sick of KPOV editors using sock puppets. (i.e. user:Appleby, who was a really productive Wikipedian for WP:KO). (Wikimachine 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
Yes sir. At the same time, I was thinking that @ disputed cases, using multiple voices would be more productive than providing evidences because the evidences themselves are contested -that is, should we use Chinese evidence, or Korean evidence? Actually, that was a bad example. A good one would be "should we use Chinese or Korean name for that specific individual?" (Wikimachine 05:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Ksyrie, I've tentatively cleared you. --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Casualties

Thanks for your message. I am at work now and will be abel to respond later today.--Woogie10w 12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) · The population data for each country is 1939.
· The schedule adds across and down the page, the numbers are not a range.
· The footnotes must be in English.
· The footnotes are the appropriate place to list disputed data.
· The footnote for China makes it clear that China’s losses are disputed. The sources listed by R. J. Rummel range from 10.6 to 37.0 million.
--Woogie10w 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Can you please provide a translation of the material you posted today. To bump the number up to 35 million we need a real solid source, not the Peoples Daily--Woogie10w 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I Posted this back in 2005 because I had a hunch that the China number was bigger than 10 million. I hope you have the answer to my question.
Can anyone provide authoriative information on China's civilian losses in WW2 1937-45?--Berndd11222 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC) --Woogie10w 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just sent a E-Mail to a Prof. Stephen Phillips who teaches East Asian history asking him for sources that will clear up the issue of Chinese losses, hopefully he can point us in the right direction. In any case I want to get the number right, I do not care if it is 10 or 35 million.--Woogie10w 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTO)
Official Chinese sources confirm that the figure of 35 million includes dead as well as wounded. The WW 2 Casualties page does not include statistics of wounded ,only war dead[1][2][3]
You are right, I think the number should be 20 million based on the data you posted from the China Academy of Science. In any case the English language source R. J. Rummel will back up the 20 million. What do think abou that?--Woogie10w 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, maybe if you have the time to provide a Chinese source. I think it would be better than R.J. Rummel--Woogie10w 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The statistic of 11.4 million military casualties includes battle dead, wounded, conscript dead and deserters. The source I listed Ho Ping ti details military losses as 1,500,000 killed, 750,000 missing in battle plus 1,500,000 million died of disease and 3,000,000 wounded. There were 14 million men who were concripted of whom 3.5 million were on active duty in 1945. R. J. Rummel believes the balance of 3 million died of mistreatment during conscription campaigns during the war. The Kuomingtang forcibly rounded up men for service who were treated in a real brutal manner. Life in China was real grim then. My best friend in grade school back in 1958 was from China, his parents were in Chungking during the war. They said the Japanese bombed every day. I grew up in the NY Chinatown--Woogie10w 00:53, 25 March

2007 (UTC)

This is a great film, real powerful.Devils on the Doorstep.--Woogie10w 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be very low:

Edit summary usage for Ksyrie: 4% for major edits and 55% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 44 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok,I will improve.--Ksyrie 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for sock puppetry accusation

Hey Ksyrie! I'm sorry for my accusation. It wasn't you after all.

When I was checking through your edits, they were all excellent & the range of topics that you covered with your edits clearly show that you are very NPOV and a good citizen.

I hope that the sock puppetry case has not messed up your image, but that it actually elevated your status in the Wikipedia community by showing all others that you have absolutely nothing to do with stupid things like sock puppetry.

Once again, thanks for your patience. Good luck with the rest of your Wikipedia career & perhaps run for adminship! (if you run for adminship, invite me to your rfa) (Wikimachine 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] What was issue with suborbital categories?

Hello, I am wondering what was the problem with the categories which you removed form the suborbital page? Thanks. Charles 16:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “South Tibet”

I've nominated the article on “South Tibet” for deletion. Please have another look at the discussion on that article. —Babelfisch 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War triggered over gyrfalcons

I have tidied your insertion in gyrfalcon:-

In the 12th century AD the Jurchen tribes rebelled against the Chinese Liao Dynasty which was set up by Khitan people. The primary cause was that the Khitan nobles extorted a big tax of gyrfalcons. [citation needed]

Please provide a source reference for this information. Anthony Appleyard 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical error with archive

According to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, the archive for your talk page should have a space before the number in its name. I don't mean to be picky, but policies are policies, no matter how unnecessary. --Chaffers (talk)/(contributions) 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] check this out

Talk:Baekdu_Mountain#Suggested_Merge —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeahsoo (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/s/y/User_talk%7EKsyrie_eeeb.html"