User talk:Hairwizard91/Archive1

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Wei Man

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages, as you did with Wei Man, and follow the correct procedure. --Kusunose 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I'm just notifying you that the way you moved the page is not appropriate. Look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GDFL copyright terms. As the page with the new name already exists and thus the move tab do not work, you should follow Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Kusunose 12:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As you have notified me you understand my point, I have removed my warning, which I posted at the same time as you posted your notification. Sorry! --Kusunose 12:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note that I generally have no personal interest in the contents of these articles; it is you who have been changing them against consensus, and I'm trying to protect the integrity of the process after your clear evasion of WP:3RR, among other rule violations, has been brought to my attention. Please note that further POV-editing without discussion will be reverted. --Nlu (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

I noticed that you've never been welcomed...

Welcome!

Hey, Hairwizard91, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the site and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful (some of them may sound stupid, but I recommend you check them out):

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• The Sandbox — A great place to experiment

While editing, please remember:

• Be Bold, but not reckless in updating pages
• No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor

You should introduce yourself here at the new user log. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name, the date, and the time.

For your first edits, I suggest searching for articles that you think might interest you. You could also be audacious and try a random page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and happy editing! Cbrown1023 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles are still semi-protected. If you want to request removal of the semi-protection, go to WP:RFPP. Meanwhile, removal of the tags from protected articles will be considered vandalism and will draw you another block unless you stop. --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have no doubt that you are violating WP:POINT by re-inserting spurrious {{fact}} and other tags, you are now blocked for 48 hours. Sit out your block, or you'll get a longer one. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Goguryeo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to add it, find some verifiable sources that say the same thing. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please note that Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies on User talk pages (and elsewhere too). It applies even if you are using a language other than English. If you wish to be respected as a contributor here, please learn to exercise a reasonable amount of civility. -- Visviva 11:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

You've tagged a number of images that you uploaded with {{GFDL-self}}. However, these appear to be scans from copyrighted books that you have downloaded from copyrighted websites. If you believe that these images really are released under the GFDL, please provide some information to support that claim. Cheers, -- Visviva 07:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to use the pictures until the dicussion is over. I think that the figures are not uploaded to the main article, it will be temporary fine.

If you dont agree with that, I will make and upload it.

Uploading unlicensed images with incorrect copyright tags, seemingly to prove a point (which seems to be what you've just admitted to) is categorically not fine. I see you've been warned before, and have thus blocked you for 48hrs, for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by disrupting WIkipedia to prove a point. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hairwizard91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After I have been warned about the figures, I have exchanged the articles in order for the other figure(which is self-made and has no copyright) to be used in the article because I dont know how to remove the uploaded figures. You can check the Talk:Baekje

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please check the current article.

• Previous article [[1]]
  
• Modified Article [[2]]

Uh Duh Ke Hal Kka?

I honestly don't know wat to do at this point. This "edit war" is going too far. na nun bang bub yi ub sub ni da. guh ri go, ji gum hangul yi ahn dweh suh yi ruh ke gul ul ssuh go yi ssub ni da. hahaha. it feels weird typing in konglish. I've come to glorify Korean history. not argue with people about Goguryeo. I am a proud korean just as u r. Don't get me wrong. I'll try my best to try and fix this problem peacefully and within Wikipedian law. --Kprideboi 21:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Effort

제가 할수있는걸 해보았습니다. Oyo321 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Baekje power.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baekje power.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- Endroit 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Glen 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added an archive. If you dont like, just tell me here and I will revert and delete the archive page (I mean a proper deletion not just a revert) for you. Hope its ok :) Glen 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Now behave! :)

How to use the archive?

You can just copy the information from here to the archive. Yamaguchi先生 07:49, 24 October 2006

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been taught exactly how you're supposed to archive and how you're not supposed to. Please follow those directions. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please compare the user pages when you give me warning. I just remove the figure (archive figure) that someone had added to my user page.

As per discussion, I understand now. But please do be careful. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo

As you can see in the discussions, many believe that Goguryeo is at least partially Chinese or Manchurian. Please do not declare that "Goguryeo is Korean" in the Goguryeo article, or add the word "Korean" in there unless you have clear consensus.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Endroit 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on October 28 2006 to Goguryeo

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

nangnang nation

위키백과 에서 너무 심하게 나가면 다른 사람들이 실어해요. 조심하세요, 저도 한번 그랫거든요. nangnang nation을 움지기러 하는데 막아야되요. Good friend100 12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

님.....

죄송하지만 고구려 기사에서 하시는 방식으로 막 나가면 오히려 역효과가 나타납니다. 무엇을 바꾸기 전에는 어느 정도 다른 사람들을 설득시키고 하세요.

일단 님의 의견들을 보면...

1. 조공: 고구려는 중국에게 조공은 바쳤습니다. 단, 우리가 알아야 하는 것은 고구려의 경우, 거의 대등한 위치에서 형식적으로 조공 관계였다는 것을 강조해야 합니다. 님처럼 고구려는 조공 관계가 아니였다, 중국이 조공을 바쳤다하면, 그것은 역사 왜곡입니다.

2. 만주/동북: 만주는 근대 일본과 우리가 사용한 말이지, 중국인들이 거의 사용하지 않은 말입니다.

그리고 Visviva에 대해서: 이 사람은 상당히 중립적인 사람입니다. 가끔식 반한국적인 것처럼 보일 정도이죠. 하지만 기본적으로는 사실을 위해 노력하는 사람이니, 너ㅜ 기분 나쁘게 생각하지 마세요 ^^

그리고 저도 이제 본격적으로 고구려 기사에 노력할 계획입니다. 저번 달은 백두산과 천지로 일이 묶여 있었거든요.

말씀하실 것 있으면 제 talk 페이지에 글 올리세요.

그럼 좋은 하루 되세요!

--General Tiger

li

But that fact is NOT clear to the normal user of Wik. My point is that the user not conversant with li (which is variable any-way) gets no adequate help by clicking on the link. Thus, for the nonconversant user, the article's sentence is at best meaningless.Kdammers 04:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"China replaces the term of Manchuria with North East after launching the project..."

이렇게 쓰면 문제가 될 수 있습니다. 오히려 이렇게 하면

"China has been working to replace the word 'Manchuria' with 'Northeast China' for world usage"

더 좋을 것 같내요. 이러면 중공이 만주를 한족화한다는 뜻을 내포하니 말입니다.

그리고..... 일단 제가 고구려 talk에 쓴 것이에 대해서: 저는 중국이 고구려를 한족화하는 것에 대해 말하는 것입니다. 일단 중국이 만주를 가지고 있는 이상, 중국 역사의 일부죠 (로마가 프랑스의 역사의 일부인 것처럼). 하지만 우리가 반박해야 할 것은 바로 고구려는 한족의 일부인 것에 대해 반박해야 하는 거입니다. 그러니 "So, what is difference between China and Zhonghua minzu?? They are different?? According to the logic of north east project, the native american history should have been the history of USA. But, the native american history is not history of USA." 에 리플 형식으로 "native americans may be a part of US history, but that does not mean they are JUST the people of the US: they are a seperate people who from a piece of US, not a member of that "melting pot". 를 쓰시면 님이 개념없는 민족주의자처럼 보이지 않을 것입니다.

그리고 마지막: 막 여러 기사를 고치지 마세요. 일단 한두가지면 집중해서 고쳐야만 오해받지 않고 우리 입장을 굳힐 수 있십니다.

참고로 일단 한산군은 나중에 건드린느 것이 좋을 것 같내요.

답장 기다릴께요.

--General Tiger

한산군....

솔직히 이것은 백제가 대륙에도 있었다는 것보다 자료가 없은 것이라..... 저는 어떻게 할 수 가 없네요. 제 talk 페이지에 사이트 링크 좀 부탁합니다.

그리고 글을 쓰기 전에, 우리 역사에 무지한 사람을 어떻게 설득하는 것이 좋을지를 한번 생각하세요. 그럼 사람들이 더 믿을 꺼예요. ^^

-- General Tiger

Sources

Hi,

Ideally, we look for multiple peer-reviewed secondary sources, such as survey texts or journal articles, preferably backed up by widely-accepted tertiary sources such as encyclopedias. See the old explanation of this in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or the new explanation in Wikipedia:Attribution. The references in Mumun pottery period are a shining example of what Wikipedia needs. Of course, most articles currently fall below that standard.

You might find this helpful: Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What kinds of sources are regarded as reliable? In general, I would say that an interpretation may be taken seriously if it is taken seriously by a large number of scholars in the field. A theory's presence in specific books, particularly polemical or nationalistic works, is simply not sufficient. This is why I've come around to the belief that the "State of Nangnang" theory deserves serious treatment -- it appears to be taken seriously by both North Korea and some South Korean tertiary works -- while I still don't see why we should have an article on the Three Gojoseon. Cheers, -- Visviva 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Hairwizard91. I'm not an expert on Baekje, but the Mahan article and other sources I read say that Baekje started as a member of the Mahan. I don't think King Jun completely destroyed Mahan, since Mahan existed along with Baekje until Baekje took over all of Mahan territory centuries later.

Anyway, good luck working on these articles, especially finding acceptable sources according to Wikipedia standards. However, I wonder if you also have more knowledge than me on other topics, such as Sea of Japan, Sea of Japan naming dispute, and Dokdo, especially the naming dispute, which is being changed right now. These articles need some serious attention, and are probably more important and seen by more people than Three Gojoseon and Joseon Sanggosa. Thanks. Muluz 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources

It would help your cause if you found some secondary sources in English and quoted them on the talk page, in the meantime, please refrain from inserting the same old claims into the text. The more 3RR blocks you accumulate, the less people are going to take your claims seriously. Good luck.--Niohe 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

님의 글을 읽고

다음부터 님의 이름을 끝에 적어주세요. ^^ 님 이름

아, 그리고 그냥 영어로 쓰시는 것이 저한테 편할 듯..... 초등학교를 미국에서 나왔다 보니, 쓰기는 영어가 더 편해서.

끄럼 좋은 하루 되세요! ^O^ -- General Tiger

Hi!

Nice to meet you.

I admire your work to give Korea a higher profile. We need to work hard and diligently to present an honest accounting of things Korean. i have noticed over the years that there are quite a few important and helpful things about Korea and human life in general of which almost nobody outside of Korea knows! 우리가 여러분들께 알아 드리면서 같이 고생 합시다.

I hope you will agree with me that whatever we do, we should try to carry ourselves well and do our best to provide high quality, well-researched information. After all, professionals are working on many important kinds of research and it is good to reflect their good work. As Visviva remarks above, it seems to me that it is better to elucidate ideas that have some weight behind them -- ideas that are accepted by professional Korean academics and regular folks. After all, we need to put our best foot forward, with a smile, and welcome people to the wonderful world that is Korean Civilization. ^^ 안녕! --Mumun 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to mention Professor 배형일 Bae Hyeong-il (she spells it Pai, Hyung-Il) of UCSB in the USA has worked on the topics that interest you. She wrote a PhD thesis under K.C. Chang at Harvard and has since published a number of articles on Nang-nang in Cambridge Journal of Archaeology, etc. Mumun 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I was not referring to the publication you mentioned. Why not try the following:

Pai, Hyung Il. 1989. Lelang and the 'Interaction Sphere': An Alternative Approach to Korean State Formation. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8(1):64-75.

Additionally, her PhD thesis can be downloaded from Proquest. We will be able to help each other down the line. Please refrain from referring to my friend and colleague's work as garbage. Let's create a positive, fun atmosphere. After all, we are helping to spread important knowledge. Thank you for your suggestion on my talk page as well! ^_^ 수고하세요!, 헤어위저드씨! -- Mumun 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hairwizard! It's too bad about the university library where you are. Why not try the intra-library loans system to get the article? I will check the web to see if Archaeological Review from Cambridge has these articles online somewhere. Alternatively, Professor Pai is friendly and helpful. I don't know for sure but if you send her an email she might send you the article (or perhaps a PDF of her PhD thesis?). 헤어위저드 파이팅! ^^

Mumun 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hairwizard. I know ancient Korean history is serious business. It is strange that certain people in China have made false claims about Goguryeo, Buyeo, Balhae, etc. Also strange is the Mimana claim. I know many people in Korea are worried and angry about that. However, Korea has the strength of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence to back the status quo about Goguryeo, Buyeo, Balhae, Gaya polities, etc. We are certain that these groups are all connected to Korean Civilization more than anything else. The Korean positions on all of these are protected -- I think China would have a difficult time to prove to the rest of the world the Goguryeo was somehow 'Chinese' or 'Han' in nature. This is because the scholarly world is highly connected now, and it is likely that most researchers in China at institutes such as CASS agree about Goguryeo as Korean Civilization, etc. I think we don't need to worry so much because the arguments that support the basic claims of historians in Korea are maintained by historical facts and the results of archaeology and linguistics. China really doesn't care too much about the facts at all, per se, right? For example, I think the reason for that is the fact that there are so many people of Korean ancestry living in Northeast China along with other non-Han Chinese 'minorities'. China wants to protect their territorial claim to Northeast China. The few people in China who challenge Goguryeo or Balhae are on the fringe and they make clumsy arguments. On the other hand, there has been so much archaeological material unearthed from Western Gyeongnam over the last 100 years that the fringe Japanese researchers who argue for Mimana will be embarrassed by the thousands of archaeological site reports that scream "there is no archaeological evidence for Mimana"! It is not possible to argue like that any more and be taken seriously by the academy in Japan. I hope it is clear here that the modern Korean positions advocated by mainstream historians in the academic community in Korea are also recognized by most in China and Japan. In fact, you'd be surprised how much interaction their is between historians in Northeast Asia -- and so many of them drink well that they get along very well.

I think you could find brief archaeological site reports from Liaodong that date to the period of your interest in journals such as Kaogu (考古). I'll see if I can locate something specific. Most of the English-language stuff that you see quoted often doesn't have much to say about the archaeology in Liaodong during the time that is of interest to you :-)

Hongshan is interesting, eh? I like it too. There is a good summary of the archaeological work done on Hongshan Culture in the following:

• 鄭漢德. 2000. 中國 考古學 硏究: 中國 考古學의 길잡이. 학연문화사, 서울.

Professor Jeong was at 부산대 but retired recently. The section on Hongshan is pp. 171-180. The Nelson book that is referenced on the Hongshan culture article page is also good to look at. You might check Barnes (1993) also.

It is difficult to say that Hongshan was 'Korean' because of the dates (radiocarbon dating suggests 4700-2920 cal. B.C.), the location the kind of material culture that is excavated from Hongshan sites. We can find some similar kinds of artifacts and features between Hongshan and Mumun pottery period culture: the use of stone cist burials at 牛河梁 遺蹟. Stone cists burials were used in the northern Korean peninsula by 1300 B.C. or a little before and in the Southern Korean Peninsula by 1000 B.C. Stone Cist Burial No. 1 at 牛河梁 遺蹟 yielded small greenstone ornaments that have been nicknamed 'pig-nosed jades'. Production of greenstone ornaments in Southern Korea didn't begin until after 1000 B.C. Mumun 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I like 짜짱면 better than 짬뽕, but I like to sing the 짬뽕 song when i go to 노래방 ㅋㅋMumun 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hairwizard. Here's the 紅山文化 full citations:

• Barnes, Gina L. 1993. China, Korea, and Japan: The Rise of Civilization in East Asia. Thames and Hudson, London.

-the Hongshan stuff is pp.108-111.

• Sarah M. Nelson (ed.). 1995. The Archaeology of Northeast China: Beyond the Great Wall. Routledge, London. ISBN 0415117550

I agree that you should consider all possibilities. To me, it is important to take a post-modern view of these things, and consider all theories as they make sense and don't advocate bad stuff, etc. When I first started to look at Ancient and Early Korean history, I spent about 2 weeks in the library getting a sense of the available literature. It was during that time that I came across the work of Professor Yun Nae-hyeon. For quite a while, I couldn't understand what Yun was talking about because he uses a kind of reasoning and logic with which I am not familiar. Also, as you know, his historical terms of reference are different. His ideas seem complex. Yet I remained confused about what he meant in his work. It was only when I read the work of the majority of historians more closely and discussed Prof. Yun's work with my professors that I was able to gain a perspective on Prof. Yun's work. I don't agree with his conclusions and ideas at all. YET I think we need to present a (critical) summary of his ideas about 낙낭 in Wikipedia -- like a revised State of Nangnang article. Also, I am fortunate to have humbly received the teachings of many Korean archaeologists and historians over the last 12 years or so, and so I learned that in Korea it is necessary to give the proper respect to all teachers.

Just as you and me and Visviva have come into contact with Prof. Yun's work, other students who study Korea will also find Professor Yun's Korean work and the stuff that is translated into English. I predict they will be confused because there is more than one way to think about Nangnang. Therefore, we need to honestly and critically present all the possibilities. That means we have to communicate the core ideas of Yun about Nangnang, along with other ways in which we can see Nangnang. We can make critical points about each way to look at Nangnang too ^^.

Mumun 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job

Great job on all your work on Wikipedia! Don't let the people out to get you get you down. Stay awesome! -Jecowa 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it Jecowa, you're welcome to comment at Talk:Reorganization Agent of Korean History as well. The character in Image:Hwanin hwanguk.jpg was definitely not 国 (was 囯 instead). Please elaborate on your thoughts there; I'm all ears.--Endroit 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have bad eyes. But, 国 and 囯 have the same meaning of "state." It does not change the main theme of the article. --Hairwizard91 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard 파이팅! Mumun 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunmin Jeongeum

Hi, I reverted your edit to Hunmin Jeongeum. I deleted it because it doesn't appear anywhere else, and that is against the WP:NOR policy. --Kjoonlee 06:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Priority

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Importance. Perhaps I'm missing something... How does the Pyeonsuhoe constitute a "major point of entry" to Wikipedia's Korea-related coverage? -- Visviva 17:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I have just found that someone had added the sentence Goryeo army was annihilated two times by Japan, but I couldn't find the source. And you added some comment about that. So, can you give me the source about the defeat of allied army of Mogol and Goryeo by Japan? I prefer to primary source --Hairwizard91 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish to express my gratitude for your answer. I confirm it. Is it the first information that you hopes? record of South Korea, record of China, and Record of Japan,　Which do you want? Let's discuss it. Please divide your knowledge into me. --NekoNekoTeacher 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The record of Goryeo says that Mongol and Goryeo attacked Japan, but failed because of heaven storm. But, you said that the allied army is defeated by Japan. So, I want to see the primary source about the defeat by Japan. --Hairwizard91 13:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Information for which you hope is being written in "Record of Goryeo". [4]Volume 19 of the history book on this South Korea is recorded. Mongolia and Goeryo were not able to landing on Kyushu because Japan had defended in the Dazaifu. When Mongolia began withdrawing to replenish water, the typhoon attacked it them. As a result, a Mongolian army was annihilated.

Write the Chinese character in here about that. I could not find it. I have already said that it is failed by heavy storm. --Hairwizard91 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response was very early. Did you seriously read the source? Please read the source again. And, please do a more advanced answer. Your answer proves your history knowledge.--NekoNekoTeacher 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume that you did not read it very carefully becase you are totally wrong. See!! What you said is wrong because volume 19 is the period of 明宗 from 1170 to 1197. Do you know when Mongol attacked Korea? haha. it is about 100 years later--Hairwizard91 14:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake certainly. ("高麗史節要巻十九" "高麗史") Please look at 19 volumes of this source.[5] I cannot read Hangul. Therefore, please give time to the investigation. Please show your source while I am investigating. Moreover, I will investigate the record of Yuan Dynasty. --NekoNekoTeacher 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Write the Primary source as Chinese character here

Write directly the chinese character in here if you want to say that the mongol and korea were defeated by Japan. There is no such a sentence in record of Goryeo. I also welcome to read the Japanese source 日本書紀. You shall not find any source that Japan defeated the allied army of Mongol and Korea. --Hairwizard91 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Certainly, information on Mongol will not be able to be found to Nihonshoki.　Your Japanese knowledge is very low. --NekoNekoTeacher 14:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that... I want to see the primary source saying that the allied army of Mongol and Goryeo were defeated by Japan. Where did you find it ?--Hairwizard91 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I referred to the article on Mongol invasions of Japan of Wikipedia. Could you teach the source that Mongolia and Allied Forces of goeryo won Japan? --NekoNekoTeacher 14:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Again. Write here the 日本書紀 or 高麗史

Write the Chinese character saying that Mongol and Korean were defeated by Japan. What these sentences are based on ???? Where did you find them ?
Mongolia and Goeryo were not able to landing on Kyushu because Japan had defended in the Dazaifu. When Mongolia began withdrawing to replenish water, the typhoon attacked it them. As a result, a Mongolian army was annihilated.--Hairwizard91 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not correctly understand Nihonshoki first. Next, I referred to Mongol invasions of Japan of Wikipedia. And, sources written there were linked by mistake. And, what are your insistence and source?　--NekoNekoTeacher 14:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Source of 高麗史

高麗史 volume 23-25 [6]--Hairwizard91 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonjong of Goryeo is dead in 1974. Do you know when Mongol attacked Japan? hahaha. Why is there a record there though it became Japan and a war after he dies?--NekoNekoTeacher 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Source of 高麗史

1. 高麗史26卷-世家26-元宗2-10-29-1269[7],

甲子蒙古使于婁大于　等六人偕倭人來　出迎于郊初申思佺與倭人謁帝帝大喜曰: "爾國王祗　朕命使爾等往日本爾等不以險阻爲辭入不測之地生還復命忠節可嘉." 厚賜匹帛以至從卒又謂倭人曰: "爾國朝覲中國其來尙矣今朕欲爾國之來朝非以逼汝也但欲垂名於後耳." 賚予甚稠　令觀覽宮殿旣而倭人奏云: "臣等聞有天堂佛刹正謂是也." 帝悅又使　觀燕京萬壽山玉殿與諸城闕.

1. 高麗史29卷-世家29-忠烈王2-08-30-1282[8],

蠻軍摠把沈聰等六人自日本逃來言: "本明州人至元十八年六月十八日從葛刺　萬戶上船至日本値惡風船敗. 衆軍十三四萬同　一山十月初八日日本軍至我軍飢不能戰皆降日本擇留工匠及知田者餘皆殺之." 王遣上將軍印侯郞將柳庇押聰等送于元.

Please let me hear your impression. --NekoNekoTeacher 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... It is natural that some of the total army is defeated. But, you said that the entire army is defeated by Japan. --Hairwizard91 15:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I am not sure they are actually the army who attacked Japan. the number of soldiers are 130,000~140,000. It is larger than the entire army who attacked Japan.

The anwer is here. When is it 至元十八年? I do not know when 至元十八年 is. Do you know?

Moreover, who is he, 蠻軍. It is usually said the barbarian who lived in the south of China. --Hairwizard91 15:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss it by the same rule as me. Please write the source that proves your　insistence. And, please write Mongol invasions of Japan on which yours insists. Please let me hear the impression to this information. How did you understand the meaning of this Chinese character? 日本軍至我軍飢不能戰皆降日本擇留工匠及知田者餘皆殺之　--NekoNekoTeacher 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See when it is... It is one year later after the war ends. Moreover, the army is not allied soldier of Korean and Mongol. They are 蠻軍. Japan just kill 蠻軍. You may know the meaning of 蠻. They are barbarian who live southern area from China. --Hairwizard91 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Where in "Japan just kill 蠻 army" source is this being written?　Moreover, 蠻 is not being written the barbarian. Are you insisting on the episode not being written in the source?　How did you understand the meaning of this Chinese character? 日本軍至我軍飢不能戰皆降日本擇留工匠及知田者餘皆殺之--NekoNekoTeacher 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk in your page from now on. --Hairwizard91 16:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Violating 3RR rule

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This warning was written on my page without the signature. As a result of the investigation, 16:24, 19 November 2006 Hairwizard91 (Talk | contribs) (→Violating 3RR rule) OK, Let's discuss it again tomorrow.Till then, please answer my question. --NekoNekoTeacher 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I will sign then. --Hairwizard91 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)