Samuel kozulin

On the Juche Entry

Hi, Samuel, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's always refreshing to have a serious scholar contributing to historical and political articles. You seem especially knowledgeable about North Korea, a country which has become increasingly 'in the news' in recent years.

You explanation in Talk:Juche of juche referring to the nation as a whole (rather than individual citizens) is an important addition. I wonder if the article itself explains it as clearly. If not, I'd like to have your explanation in the Juche article.

Also, good catch on the sarcastic reference to the stalled hotel project. That reference is what caught my eye and got me to start working on Ryugyong Hotel project, but I forget to go back and fix the language. I'm glad you did! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

..........

Hello, Ed. Thanks for the welcome. The Juche entry still has a way to go. Please see my response to your question about Kim Il-sung, Sun Myung Moon, and Juche on the Talk:Juche page. That addition about the nation/individual relationship should be made. I’ll try and get back to it. The reference to the Ryugyung Hotel Project was really out of place in the opening of the entry. -- Samuel kozulin 14:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Brian Reynolds Myers Entry

Hello Mr. Kozulin,

I appreciate your leaving me a message on my talk page concerning the Myers article. I'm not one to debate you on esoteric matters related to North Korea, but if you feel my edits were inappropriate or misguided, by all means, please correct them yourself; after all, that's what Wikipedia is about. As for me straying from the supposed duties of a Wikignome, you should know that that is not a restrictive categorization. I sometimes do make substantial edits to articles.

My changes to the article in question came about because I, like most other non-specialized readers, do not know who is making what criticisms of Mr. Myers. Simply because the article contains a list of works consulted does not mean that biased or opinionated statements cannot be snuck in by "vengeful grad students," to reuse my phrase. So uninformed readers (perhaps constituting the majority of Wikipedia's users) are not misled by statements lacking clear sources, I decided to remove them. Admittedly, there probably exists a template or other sort of standardized mechanism to get the same point across. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Wikipedia's more intricate components is not too broad, and I could not immediately come across one suitable to the situation at hand.

In conclusion, please know that my edits were not made in bad faith, and if you can use your knowledge to make them better, I and all the other users and editors of Wikipedia would certainly appreciate it. --Impaciente 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

..........

Thank you for your note, Impaciente. The subject title has been changed to reflect content. Your concern about the Brian Reynolds Myers entry is legitimate, but apparently based on conjecture or supposition. I abide by the official Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith policy and also believe that no one should delete 50 percent of any Wikipedia entry unless there is clear and present falsification and vandalism. See the Talk:Brian Reynolds Myers page for further discussion. -- Samuel kozulin 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)