User talk:Yongjik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Greetings from WikiProject Korea!

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Wikimachine 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user page is funny. (Wikimachine 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks! I'll keep that as funny as time allows... :) Yongjik 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from the We Don't Care Who Owns the Liancourt Rocks Club

Hi. You're not the only one. --Bakarocket 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gangnam, sourcing

Hi Yongjik. Internet news articles are... well, it depends. Seems OK as a source for the Gangnam passenger factoid, but this is the English wikipedia, and English sources are preferred when possible. The formatting is a little off, theres no need for the actual web address to show up, just the article title with hyperlink. This is a handy ref template for Korean sources:

<ref>{{ko}}{{cite web|url=|title=}}</ref>

I've formatted it into the Gangnam St article. Nice to have you on board, Deiz talk 08:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your rationale. But you have to give me some slack, it would be awfully difficult to find an English article on Gangnam station... :) Korean news sites are usually IE-friendly and defies the power of google.

Anyway, nothing personal, but I just found it odd that many articles are translated wholesale from English (or other languages) to Korean, sometimes poorly, and it is considered OK, but then when I did more or less the same (in the other direction) for a tiny portion of an article it gets reverted in a day... It makes me wonder if my edits will have better chance of survival if I don't point out sources at all. :(

But, as they say, do as Romans in Rome. I'll try to find English sources next time. :> Yongjik 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

en.wiki is probably more developed in the sense of demanding copyright, sourcing etc. because it's so much more visible than other language wikis.. any claim such as ".. is the biggest / best / busiest" may well be challenged or removed without sources depending on who is watching the article. As a Scot living in Korea I fight the bias of Americanism when I see it, but while WP is not focussed on one country, it is still written in a particular language. I'm happy to help you out where I can. Deiz talk 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)