YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

User talk:Paula

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 05:46, 5 February 2009 by Paula (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.
2. Your map uses the old romanisations. Pls stick to the revised romanisations when dealing with South Korea. The old ones should be used when dealing with North Korea. In addition, there might be some copyright issues as it appears to be scanned from a book so some moderator will eventually remove it anyway.

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)

Welcome, external links

Hello Paula! Welcome to Wikitravel.

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 (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)

In general, you should not make any links to any third-party travel guides, see Wikitravel:External links for the full scoop. Basically, we want the information to be right here on this site, not somewhere else; this is particularly important for offline use of Wikitravel, such as the printed guidebooks of Wikitravel Press. Jpatokal 05:11, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, you can and should link to the official tourism site of any country or destination once in the very first sentence of the article, but other links are generally inappropriate. Jpatokal 03:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Any important information should be right here in Wikitravel, not behind an external link that may break tomorrow and is not accessible offline. So the correct answer is neither to link to the external travel guide nor to simply omit the link, it's to add that information into the correct place in Wikitravel.
The "no English content" rule has been a bit of a dead letter for a while now, and it's now removed from the official policy. So yes, hotel websites etc in Korean only are fine.
I didn't quite understand what you meant by "the history is not visible"...?
And please sign your messages by entering ~~~~, it turns into your name and timestamp automatically when you save. Jpatokal 08:00, 9 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 [1], 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)

Also, where are those Dokdo pictures taken from? Did you take them yourself? Jpatokal 08:15, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
Replied on Talk:Dokdo. And I have no intention of chasing you on other Korea articles, because fortunately the rest of the country is not disputed... Jpatokal 01:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
You're not going to win this one unless you can convince others on Talk:Dokdo, so start talking. Jpatokal 02:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
See above. This is not personal. Jpatokal 03:46, 10 October 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)

Your map is a direct copy from the KTO site, which states "All rights reserved", so you will need to show us that permission in writing. See shared:Votes_for_deletion#Image:.EC.82.AC.EB.B3.B8_-kor_map03.jpg. Jpatokal 10:56, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
That's cuz it's the people who work for them that made it for me. Permission has been granted and documented. Check image history


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)

Thanks for your reply. Now I understand your reason for deleting (or actually relocating) the info about the ferries, I'll leave you on peace... HAHA... Cheers. WindHorse 10:58, 13 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

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)

Edit Warring

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)

Rogue Bureaucrat

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)

Evan is not active here for the foreseeable future, besides Evan and Jptokal have been working together pretty closely for a number of years, so I doubt you would find much sympathy on that front, in any case, the way this place works, is if you think an admin is crossing a line, you take it up with one of the other active admins. (you can see a list here). Also, while I know Jptokal's direct style can often leave quite a bit to be desired, you often come across as overly aggressive yourself, which isn't exactly helping things, least of all if you are crying out for backup. Also in this case, reverting to an "edit war" is just about the worst thing you can do in these circumstances.

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)

Now regarding the issue at hand, I think you might have misinterpreted the motives behind the edits, which I suspect would be 1) The traveller comes first 2) We want as simple a structure as possible. Now I've never been north of Gyeongju, and hence not an expert on anything Seoul, but it seems like the only ones that would really be hurt and sad we would call this amalgamated island Yeongjong, would be locals on Yongyu, and they hardly need a travel guide. most maps I could find, identify it as one island anyway (lest one from where the airport was still under construction): [2], [3], [4], [5]. Which leads be to point 2, the amount of content in the guide hardly merits a split. If this is really something you'd loose sleep over, i would suggest either that you fill in so much useful content for Yeongyu, that it make sense to split the article, or that we discuss a rename the whole shabang to "Yeongjong-Yeongyu island", but from my light research on the subject, it does seem pointless as most places refer to the airport as being on Yeongjong, wikipedia even writes "The previously separate Yongyu, Sammok, and Sinbul Islands have been joined to Yeongjong Island by an area of reclaimed land". --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 03:13, 23 January 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 [6], Wikipedia describes the map as Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island [7], the description on the link YOU listed also describes it as Yeongjong and Yongyu Island [8], 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)