Just a reply to the stuff on my talk page:
1. Fine I relent on the airports but I condensed the information. No need to describe the airports in detail in the country article. Do that in the city articles.
I hope this cleared the air a little and I certainly do not wish to have any animosity with you. Cheers. Superdog 02:34, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.
Thanks for your work on South Korea, but please don't make deep links to http://english.visitkorea.or.kr (or any other site, for that matter). Eg. Insadong is supposed to be covered in our very own Seoul article, not other travel guides. Jpatokal 01:38, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Wikitravel's policy is that we generally accept only primary external links. This means that links to the official homepages of tourist attractions, museums, district offices, airports, ferry terminals etc are welcome. However, links to other travel guides are generally not welcome. This means that you can link to eg. the website of the Port of Incheon (a primary link), but you should not link to the KNTO page about the Port of Incheon (a secondary link). In all cases, though, the most important information (eg. phone number, how to get there, prices) should be copied to Wikitravel itself. Jpatokal 05:48, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Please use the standard Revised Romanization for any Korean phrases for consistency. There's a handy conversion tool at , just punch in the hangeul and it will give you the correct transliteration. Jpatokal 04:11, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I really don't want to bring Wikipedia's edit wars here, and that's why I don't want a lengthy history section for Dokdo. Please summarize your concerns on Talk:Dokdo if you object with what I've written. Jpatokal 08:05, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
Map of Korea
Image:사본 -kor map03.jpg is a nice-looking map, but do you really have permission from the KTO to license it under Creative Commons? It will be deleted if you don't. Jpatokal 03:46, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Hi Paula... I noticed that you reverted my edit to Ulleungdo. Was there any specific reason for this? Has the tourist ferry service been suspended? If so, could you type that into the summary box as a reason for your edit... If you do that, I'll no longer revert this specific edit... Much appreciated... Cheers... WindHorse 06:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Temples in Korea
Re: North Gyeongsang and a few others, temples like Buseoksa should not get their own articles, unless they're so huge and remote that they don't make sense in a city (eg. Guinsa). Please place them in the nearest city, like Yeongju in the case of Buseoksa, instead. Jpatokal 12:34, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Incheon Airport is on Yeongjong Island, so the airport is best covered there. The Seoul article should discuss how to get from ICN to Seoul, and the Incheon article should discuss how to get from ICN to Incheon city. Jpatokal 02:56, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Your contributions of late have been composed of little other than edit warring. Edit wars are undesirable -- please leave the article alone until a suitable compromise or discussion can be pursued. There is no harm in allowing discussion to precede minor notions of correctness. -- Colin 01:17, 6 January 2009 (EST)
I would like to address some ongoing issues with a particular bureaucrat and one of his admins. The general idea is he follows me around and basically harasses me whenever I make an edit to one of his pages. He seems to need the last word on all the edits. I'm finding this a little perplexing since I thought it was understood that edits can be made and that factual information matter. Frankly, I think it's getting a little personal and the boundaries of fairness and good sense are being breached. I've written the details in a letter I have sent to your Wiki email since I thought it would be too much for this talk page. I am a travel writer and enjoyed working on this site very much initially. However it's become a demoralizing and draining experience lately. It's unfortunate and would hope to return to my original opinion on the task. ThanxPaula 20:02, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Ha, Ha. You'd be laughing too if you saw my letter to Evan. What you have written is exactly what I had assumed and predicted the problems are with Wikitravel. You have confirmed to me that the "Old Boys Club" mentality is as pervasive as I feared it was. At least you freely admit the obvious bias that exists within the admins and which you demonstrate yourself. So, you will forgive me if I don't consider your criticism of what you perceive to be my "overly aggressive" ways as credible. Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
It is not a "cry...for backup" as you put it that I am looking for, it is the observance to the original ideals, objectivity, fairness and the freedom to make legitamite edits, of the site that I was demanding. And when I did not receive that from the people I thought most committed to those principles I was taken aback and responded concurrently.Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
By the way, I was not the one who had asked for the page to be blocked. I am always willing to compromise and have in the past. And if Evan is not active why has he not been removed on the active list?Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
No.1: If the traveller comes first shouldn't we be giving them accurate information? Does that not count as being necessary? It's not about, "my pony is prettier than your pony." It's about do these things exist or not. Is this information necessary or not? I don't know about you. I REALLY don't know about you but that's what I understand as the "traveller coming first" to mean. If the facts are not important and you refuse to see them and what you're really interested in is creating your own terms for places and inventing things because it's easier or follows some arbitrary guideline beknownst only to you and your band of bureacrats then PLEASE, PLEASE tell me now. I will be happy to let you have your way so you can play with yourselves. But if you genuinely are interested in accepting accurate information that is helpful to anyone visiting these places then believe you me, my "aggression" will subside.
No.2: Have you actually seen my edits? You would be hard pressed to see a simpler structure in some of them. I would be hurt. Every Korean local I have explained this bizarre argument I'm having with y'all would be hurt. And most importantly, anyone trying to get to the beaches and markets on Yongyu Island would be hurt. The official Incheon tourist map lists it as an island , Wikipedia describes the map as Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island , the description on the link YOU listed also describes it as Yeongjong and Yongyu Island , the airport PR Centre confirms that distinction as well. I mean WTF? Even information you and Jani have listed say exactly what I'm saying. I mean which part is difficult to understand? Every official body acknowledges this. There are 2 islands and the airport is on reclaimed land between them. That's it. Paula 00:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Letter to Evan (SysOp)
January 13, 2009
Dear Evan Prodromou,
This letter is in regards to an ongoing issue with one of the other bureaucrats on the site, Jani Patokaillo. I have been working on the South Korean pages for about 9 months now.
I first discovered Wikitravel by accident when I was researching some information on some of my future travels. I was really happy to read about your goals and general principles. They were basically saying that “it’s all free and we are all equal in the eyes of the Wiki.” However, I wasn’t sure how easy it would be to maintain these objectives.
When I wandered into the South Korean page I found there were many areas in which I could contribute some insights and updates. I not only speak the language but have grown up with the Korean culture and have been living/working here for over 6 years.
Right from the beginning my edits were being reverted by the person whose work I changed somehow. However with a little discussion on the “talk” pages we would come to a compromise and work it out like adults. The system works…at least that’s what I thought.
At first, Jani Patokaillo was quite helpful when I would ask questions on the site’s mechanics or when he would direct me to relevant guidelines. Although his tone could get caustic at times, I made the assumption his ultimate goal was the same as mine, to make the site better. However, progressively, his actions were running contrary to the site’s principles. He would reword sentences unnecessarily then explain his edits were better somehow or more correct. If it was a matter of factual information and I would challenge him with objective sources he would dismiss them and base his whole argument on a Wikipedia entry.
This started with the Dokdo page. He disputed a few lines in the intro which was referenced from historical sources recognized by both sides (Korea and Japan). He rewrote it so it would sound ambiguous regardless if it had any basis in fact or not. He had nothing to back up his statement other than one Wikipedia page which was being hotly disputed and was itself blocked from more edits. To try to reason with him I had asked him to refer to sources outside of Wikipedia but he refused. He argued that the readers did not need to know anything more than what he had written. I was flabbergasted and moved on. It seemed he did not respond to reason.
As I moved on to other pages, he followed me and made similar objections with subsequent pages but when I would ask for help he would be no where to be found. Lately, I was working on the Incheon and Yeongjong Island pages. I transferred the airport information from the Seoul page to Yeongjeong which JP had created but had neglected to put the airport information there. Ironically he had instructed me to do exactly that way back when I was working on the national page. But when I did, of course he was unhappy with that. He kept changing any updates I made on the page. It seemed senseless. He was basically saying the same thing. Correct me if I’m wrong. Aren’t we supposed to edit work that’s out of date or incorrect regardless if it’s an administrator, bureaucrat or the King of the Wikitravel and not get hassled about it needlessly? In addition he is never interested in compromising unless it’s his last word on it. I really did not expect this exceedingly proprietary attitude from a system’s operator on the Wiki.
Every official island, city and tourism website recognizes 2 islands as having been connected by the airport even Wikipedia does, as I have stated and referenced in the Yeongjong page. Refer to the map. When he didn’t get his way he asked his buddy Colin (administrator) to block the page, who then sent me a reproaching message similar to the one he (Colin) coincidently, sent me on the Dokdo page.
He is insistent on pointless arguing on the Talk pages. When I find myself repeating myself I desist from the petty squabbling. I could reference sources written on stone tablets to him but with no effect. He doesn’t want to listen.
It looks to me decisions are not being made by fair consensus but by a popularity contest. JP is a bureaucrat. He knows all the sysops, the admins and many of the contributors and he’s probably a good friend of yours. Hopefully writing to you will not meet with the same result as writing to him.
Ultimately, if this is allowed to continue, the views permitted to be shown on the site will only echo those of the chosen few. As far as I remember, this is the exact opposite of what the site was meant to be.
Apparently the system does not work very well. I am disappointed that I have to resort to writing to you about this. But this has been an ongoing thing and if every time I challenge JP on something he blocks the page, this will be a very slow progress. Like I told JP on his talk page, it is really unfortunate how he has turned something that was initially admirable and fun into something laborious and irritating.
One way or the other this needs to be resolved. I am asking for suggestions. Perhaps a reasonable outcome will come out of this mess.