Sunnyediting99

Welcome!

Hello, Sunnyediting99!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Bamnamu (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I'll make sure to do it from now on, starting with future edits, appreciate it. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have copied text from Balhae to Balhae controversies without attributing it in you edit summary. You also need to make sure to copy over the refs not just the text. You left one of the refs in Balhae controversies as Cite error: The named reference Lee Ki-baik page 88–89 was invoked but never defined (see the help page), which I have fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sunnyediting99! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bamnamu (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure I appreciate it a lot, I think I definetly need to improve my knowledge on the Wikipedia guidelines on copyright, what are Wikipedia's copyright policies on Journals (that are avaliable to everyone) as well as what is the best way to find and attribute content from Wikipedia articles? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't copy from journal articles unless you are sure that they are compatibly licensed. (Just because a journal is available to everyone doesn't mean we can reproduce its contents here; most are protected by copyright.) Attribution is required when copying from compatibly licensed material, public domain material, or when copying within Wikipedia. A good place to start when learning about how copyright applies to Wikipedia editing is Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the article South Dakota National Guard. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Just saw these, thank you I'll make sure to study these before doing future edits for some pages that I saw that require some history sections Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request)

It appears that you copied or moved text from Goguryeo–Wei War to History of Sino-Korean relations. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for giving me this template. I've started using it from now on. So it would be ok if I used that for future use? I've a bit unfamiliar but would it go something like "Copied from Three Kingdoms; see the page's history for Attribution"

I just wanted to get a hang of things, hope this format works! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I'd just like to apologize to you as well as @Diannaa and @Bamnamu for my mistakes. I think I finally got the hang of it (usually after I write/find sources/copy from other pages I always forget to add the "Copied from" Format. I appreciate your patience and understanding very much and so sorry for my early mistakes! I think I got the hang of it now. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR definition

Please see WP:PST and WP:NOTSOURCE. Being on Korean wiki does not make it a reliable source, Wikipedia is supposed to be primarily based on secondary sources, and quoting the same source without page numbers multiple times with no other sources in the same paragraph is bad form. There is no reason why you should not know this by now. Your later additions also directly contradict your previous ones so they can't have been very well researched or presented. Qiushufang (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I meant to say that I saw it on Korean Wikipedia and had incorrectly assumed that it had been well researched but as it turns out it was in fact not factually correct (or perhaps it was rather a mistranslation). The point raised on the KOR Wiki was indeed not as well researched it appeared given that the additions I found (from looking on the Korean websites) did directly contradict it.

As always I appreciate your constructive criticism though I do ask for your understanding given that I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and I am not as frequent an editor as you have been and you have five years of experience while I do not yet have one. I will take your advice to heart and read the two and I am sure with more time I can not make anymore beginners mistakes. Thank you for your help and I hope you have a good day! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Northern and Southern States period, you may be blocked from editing. Qiushufang (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop with WP:SYNTH, WP:UGC and WP:RS

Much of the material you have provided in massive edits are not backed up by WP:RS, some contain WP:UGC, and possible WP:SYNTH. Nearly all are WP:NOENG. Sources you added in this edit such as this are WP:UGC because it is a wiki anybody can edit, this does not have an author and is not a reliable source, while another here seems to be self published or a blog with broken images. This is obviously a partisan source and should be avoided. Your material on "Balhaego" by Yoo Deuk-gong could have easily been sourced in English, which is preferred on wiki (WP:NOENG) if you had just taken a second to do a cursory search. There is also the matter of weight. The article is tiny, badly sourced outside of that one section, and does not need an essay on its historiography, which is only one part of the subject. This kind of half-assed heavy handed editing is not the first time this has happened, and includes other instances such as here and here. Qiushufang (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You also seem to do this every time you are called out on your editing behavior, resulting in even worse editing and spamming of low quality sources. For example, in the edit mentioned you spammed this link without a shortcut five times. Citing a journal (고려에서 독립운동기까지의 발해사인식) without a page number or url even though it was obviously from a site. You need to stop this behavior. Qiushufang (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your additional sources did not address the pervasive SYNTH and OR seen in your previous edit(s) as well. Ex. As a result, the historiography of the Northern and Southern period had emerged as early as the 12th century, when these two factions had clashed over the consciousness of the succession of history, whether Goryeo succeeded Goguryeo or Silla. is not supported in the source and is either SYNTH or OR. Considering you are a History Major according to your user page, do you not understand what synthesis or original research mean? Qiushufang (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

First and foremost, the source you mention me of being OR/SYNTH has absolutely no merit at all. The source says the following:

"묘청의 난 진압 과정에서 김부식의 동경파가 최종 승자가 되었다. 고려 건국 이래 계속되어온 고구려 계승주의와 신라 계승주의 대결에서 신라 계승주의가 최종 승리한 것이다."

"In the process of suppressing the rebellion in Myocheong, Kim Pu-sik's longing faction became the final winner . In the confrontation between the successionism of Goguryeo and the successionism of Silla, which has continued since the founding of Goryeo, the successionism of Silla finally won."

Many of the other sources also state this exact same thing. In regards to "고려에서 독립운동기까지의 발해사인식" and "『삼국사기』의 종합적 검토", the former is a journal yet it didn't have page numbers and more importantly it also explictly points out the historiography and the latter I intended to shortcut after later edits. The fact that you undid the entire edit in three minutes, when I had said in the first initial edit that I intended to make follow up edits (because quite frankly no one edits the entire thing in one go, the same applies to everyone) removed the chance for me to go through with follow up edits like I usually do. The idea was to start with historiography and then expand on the Silla and Balhae sections given how small both sections are given the relative comparative size of many of the other pages.

There are barely any English sources on this topic (Specifically the historiography), quite frankly you seem to be selectively applying the WP:NOENG given that for example in Goguryeo controversies on the Chinese POV, the vast majority of sources are in Chinese (obviously as it is from the Chinese POV). Similarly it's not surprising that the vast majority of Korean historiography is going to be in Korean/Not in English. Also most of the sources were absolutely reliable and I intended to comb through them again for a second review as I normally do, for example the KBS source is from one of the largest Korean news networks in the world. I also intended to include English sources in the follow ups, I had found two English sources, a journal article review from Byington and another from a research paper that I had intended to include in the follow up edits, but as I said it alongside some of the otheres were intended for a follow up edit.

Finally I do not appreciate the ad homiem, personal attacks you are directing towards me. "Considering you are a History Major according to your user page, do you not understand what synthesis or original research mean?" is quite frankly a very personal, directed attack that you did not need to add in here at all. You could have just repeated asking "do you not understand what synthesis or original research mean?" but you deliberately made it personal by including my personal info on my page that did not need to be included at all. It's moreso surprising too given that in both the examples you cited, I admitted I had made mistakes:

": I agree, I meant to say that I saw it on Korean Wikipedia and had incorrectly assumed that it had been well researched but as it turns out it was in fact not factually correct (or perhaps it was rather a mistranslation). The point raised on the KOR Wiki was indeed not as well researched it appeared given that the additions I found (from looking on the Korean websites) did directly contradict it.

As always I appreciate your constructive criticism though I do ask for your understanding given that I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and I am not as frequent an editor as you have been and you have five years of experience while I do not yet have one. I will take your advice to heart and read the two and I am sure with more time I can not make anymore beginners mistakes. Thank you for your help and I hope you have a good day! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Esiymbro, I think that is a reasonable point and thank you for pointing this out. I did not know about the latter, for now I agree with you then that we can keep the status quo of leaving both Kyeru and Huhan out, but perhaps then we can add these onto the Balhae Controversies section as this is perhaps a good way to highlight the complex multiethnic nature of Balhae, which clearly had Korean, Mohe and Chinese influences and hertiage. Thank you for pointing out, as for the first point let me look more into it. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

In both instances, I admitted I had made a mistake, I apologized for making the mistake, and thanked in both instances the feedback. I have never in our correspondence resorted to questioning your expertise on a topic especially on the grounds of your personal identity, I understand where your frustration may be coming from but seeing such an emotional inflammatory and passive aggressive jab when you didn't need to include my personal information (again you could have ended it at "do you not understand what synthesis or original research mean?" is disappointing.

This type of behavior I'm sure is not what the writers of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility imagined to be constructive criticism, and in future correspondence I would appreciate if you stopped the passive aggressive, personal attacks. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the quotation you provided mentions the Northern and Southern States period or makes the claim that it started in the 12th century. If it does not support the attached content then it is WP:OR, which means making interpretations and claims which are not there in the source. I am perplexed that you could make this same mistake several times considering you are a History Major. That is a question of your behaviour in relation to your self description. In the last two cases where you did this, you did not "follow up" with edits that improved your content but admitted they were wrong or replaced them wholesale with different sources and content. Admitting to mistakes while repeatedly committing them, reverting to reinstate, and then arguing that said original research is actually not as you just have, is not anything to be proud of. Simply saying sorry and then continuing the same behaviour does not absolve you of that behaviour. The claim that there is Chinese POV and sources at Goguryeo controversies is WP:OTHERCONTENT and the claim that I am applying "selective" WP:NOENG is untrue. I have never added any main body content except maintenance tags or deleted anything from ithat article based on that policy. Nor have I introduced Chinese or Korean sources to Balhae controversies, Balhae, Goguryeo or any of the Korean subject articles you have worked on specifically to avoid contentious material that could be interpreted differently across languages. The existence of non-English sources is not the main problem, as it is allowed, but its overwhelming reliance with poor source usage, unreliable sources, and SYNTH/OR makes it dubious. That you are still arguing over a case of clear OR makes that all the more relevant. Qiushufang (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this paints an unfair picture of what happened, the follow-up edits were not just me admitting I was wrong and then nothing happening in regards to Balhae Culture. I did not push my edits to the point of triggering an edit war as others unfortunately have on Wikipedia and not only admitted I was wrong but initially planned to potentially introduce the topic onto Balhae Controversies but decided against it hoping that the other author could have replied back so that we could have made a joint effort given the other author's expertise of Chinese sources, but unfortunately the author never replied back so the window of opportunity had closed and I did not feel confident enough to go forward without a response.

For the second point, I replaced the encylopedia source with what Korean historians have talked about, and if anything it was a great addition to the page given how it beforehand, the Wikipedia page had incorrectly stated that the Balhaego was the first inclusion of Balhae into Korean history when according to actual sources it was the Jewangungi. Yes I had made a mistake that I both fully admit and followed up by correcting, and I think that was a better example of when I did initially not source correctly (This is partially because many Wikipedia pages do use Encylopedias that are editable by the public when they shouldn't but no one has caught those) but I'll fully stop using Namu and other Korean encylopedias. Also I would like to add I have edited many other pages such as Port Security Unit, James Hong, etc with constantly improved and helpful editing, so it's pretty unfair to paint this universally negative portrayal. Yes I obviously have made mistakes but it's unfair to use such emotionally laden terms that I'm getting "worse" with each edit.

For the third point, fourth and fifth points on this current discussion, I was not allowed the chance to go through with follow up edits beyond the actual initial reversion given how for most Wikipedia editors it takes multiple edits to reach a final draft, also again as I mentioned many of the sources are titled "North-South Period" and it is not WP:OR and me making interpretions when the articles themselves (Even excluding the encylopedias) discuss this as a historiographical lens. In fact many of them talk about the period without using the exact words, does every article cited in the Three Kingdoms Period specifically have to say "Three Kingdoms"? It would be an unfair word standard to hold when for example if an article is talking about Baekje, the article is alluding to the period itself.

I did not meant to imply that you added the Chinese sources for the Goguryeo controversies, that might have been miscommunication on my part, I meant to say that the WP:NOENG was being selectively enforced specifically in that the Chinese section has almost no English sources yet it has never been something no one has tried to fix or raise as an issue. Meanwhile it feels that this standard (which I agree should be held equally) is mostly held onto the Korean section in the Goguryeo controversies section. I do appreciate that you have not introduced Chinese/Korean sources onto the Korean subject articles as I do get what you are saying in that they can be interpreted differently across languages and can also be a problem in terms of translation, though on obscure topics such as these the number of English sources on say the North-South period specifically on historiography exist but are far more difficult to find.

Again this is not OR because there are clearly multiple papers written on this historiographical shift on Korean historiography of the Three Kingdoms/North South Period, though I do agree having discussed with you why having just Korean sources could be a significant problem, for the future I will try to balance out the English and Korean sources. For now if I do go with a followup edit on this page, it will be moreso a small edit of a hundred characters with balanced English/Korean sources, though I do have other non-Korean pages that are also in my focus for now.

For the last point again the inclusion of my personal background was not neccessary at all, I understand again your points on the sourcing and your concerns over OR and I do appreciate some of the feedback, but there was no need to bring up what is stated on my personal account, it is also why I have not referenced the contents of your personal Wikipedia page in our discussions to attack or demean you as Wikipedia should be a free, civil and open forum for knowledge. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

does every article cited in the Three Kingdoms Period specifically have to say "Three Kingdoms"?

If the content is about the concept of the Three Kingdoms or how it is written in history then it should. The title does not dictate the content of the article. I maintain that nothing in the source you cited states that the historiography of the Northern and Southern period had emerged as early as the 12th, and many paragraphs you added are solely related to that claim and only in a tangential manner. The claim itself is not made anywhere in the source regardless of the article title. Just because an article is titled North-South States does not mean you can claim it says something about the North-South States which it does not. That is still original research involving heavy interpretation.You can easily avoid this through providing a direction quotation from the source when challenged. If you still do not understand this after the third time you have been alerted to original research that I am aware of, then we have a problem. Qiushufang (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Generalissimo#South Korea

Hello, there is currently a discussion at Talk:Generalissimo#South Korea concerning contested article content that you added. Please join the debate there. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I just replied, thank you for notifying me. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, Do you remember me? We met in the talk page of the Generalissimo.

If you have spare time, Can you participate in below discussion?
Spartan_3000 Discussion

Some user don't believe South Korean reliable sources and it has raised a dispute.

Anyway, Thanks!Footwiks (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Korea

Hey, the material you added to the Korea article is great; just a heads up though, on the talk page I made a post talking about potentially cutting down on the history material, as it overlaps heavily with the History of Korea article. Also, as per MOS:LEAD, we should aim to use four paragraphs; I think it'll be possible once we cut down on history and if we assume that the lead is supposed to be a pretty high-level overview. I think the last two paragraphs you added are great and in the vein of what I was thinking we should aim for. toobigtokale (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Toobig, I can go through with that then, I'll cut down on the less necessary history sections and try to condense it more and polish it up. I do think it should have some alignment with History of Korea (just to help have consistency) but I do agree it should address modernity as well. I'll do some more edits soon Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) toobigtokale (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Silla?

What is the name of the kingdom? Is it Silla or Silla Korea? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's Silla, though Silla Korea can be used interchangably, similar to how for example Tang Dynasty is called Tang China by academics. I was doing this because recent edits had eroded some of the essence of previous articles on the monarchs of the Three Kingdoms. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Noktundo disruption

Hi Sunnyediting99,

I have gotten the two latest IP addresses involved in the disruption, 45.58.94.255 and 172.98.151.41, blocked from editing after making a report of them at WP:AIV (see my report here).

The first IP has been blocked for 1 week due to continuing the same disruption after the expiration of the 31h block on it, and the second IP has been blocked for 31h.

If they come back again after a block expires or as another IP address, let me know about it either by pinging me here or posting on my talk page, alternatively feel free to report them yourself at AIV using the right wording for the reasoning like I did in my report above! And if there's a particular talk page that gets rapidly disrupted by multiple IPs over a day or two, you could request page protection for it over at WP:RFPP.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello AP,

Thank you for submitting the report, I was relatively unfamiliar with AIV as I have not used it before. I was familiar with page protection and I have put in a request for protection of one of the other talk pages. Your help is very appreciated, given the extent of the vandalism across multiple talk pages. I will check your report out to learn from it, but I will seek your help if I need it.

Thank you! Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AP 499D25,

I don't think Bans will achieve anything, reporting them will just lead to more IPs.

Can you help me out with my page protection requests? Those seem like the only things that can end the issue, talking hasn't solved anything despite me providing sources (also Google Maps shows that the island exists from the beginning, they're both arguing the island doesn't exist and that if it exists the dispute doesn't exist). And it's quite frankly outrageous for me to keep trying to disprove them when they're just insulting me (again). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the two pages you requested protection on will do for now. But I will watch the situation closely and request blocks/protections if needed.

To help out on this matter, I have requested input from more editors over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea, and I may start a DR/N thread on this as well, if the help from WikiProject Korea wasn't successful. While the IP editor is definitely being disruptive by not getting the point and bludgeoning the process (by spamming the same topic through numerous threads and on different talk pages), I wanna also establish a firmer consensus here so the dispute is definitely over.

It's also worth noting bans are different from blocks; I looked at the previous user accounts involved in the Noktundo disruption and they only seem to be blocked, not actually banned. We haven't formally made a request at AN/I to block or ban the IP editor yet (most of the IP blocks were made through WP:AIV reports), I will do that if they continue to disrupt Wikipedia and do the same thing over and over again after there has been consensus established in opposite of their point. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea I just saw it got protected again, I do appreciate you keep your eye on the situation.

I think that is a good thing, for other editors to join in on the discussion. I do want to note though that it seems the editor didn't really have any solid claim and was driven moreso by their own political beliefs (a running theme in their argument was that Korea wanted to annex parts of Russia, a very fringe claim) rather than any solid academic dispute, they couldn't really provide sources to their arguments and didn't bother acknowledging. Still, please keep me updated on how the discussion goes.

Good to know, I wasn't as familiar with the terminology, though I do think they are likely a formerly banned user (TTACH, etc, they had various sock puppets) the IPs themselves as you said, were merely blocked. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested protection for Talk:List of territorial disputes again over here: link. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate it Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm Qiushufang. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Third conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the author of the source you had cited for your edit in the Goryeo–Khitan War states the following

Twitchett, Denis C.; Franke, Herbert; Fairbank, John King (1978). The Cambridge History of China: Volume 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368. Cambridge University Press. pp. 111–112. ISBN 9780521243315. Retrieved 30 July 2016. In 1018 a huge new expeditionary force was mobilized by the Khitan and placed under the command of Hsiao P'ai-ya. The army crossed the Yalu late in 1018 but was ambushed by a superior Koryŏ force, suffering severe losses. The Koryŏ army had also cut their line of retreat, and so Hsiao P'ai-ya marched south, planning to take the capital Kaegyŏng, as in 1011. But this time the Koreans had prepared defenses around the capital, and the Khitan, constantly harried by Korean attacks, were forced to retreat toward the Yalu. At Kuju, between the Ch'a and T'o rivers, they were encircled and attacked by the main Koryŏ forces, which almost annihilated the Khitan army. Only a few thousand men managed to return to the Liao border. This was by far the worst defeat suffered by the Khitan during Sheng-tsung's reign, and in consequence Hsiao P'ai-ya was stripped of all his titles and offices and disgraced.

(Bolded the last part)

There are eleven other citations on the main Goryeo-Khitan Article, many of by non-Koreans, Western scholars, which all describe the conflict ultimately as a Korean victory. While the second conflict arguably was a Khitan victory due to Kaesong being sacked as sources say, the overall literature is that the third war and the conflict as a whole was a Korean victory. I will add the citations into the Third Conflict's Wikipedia page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The citation does not contradict the outcome at all. It is noted that Goryeo won the battle but the ultimate resolution was a diplomatic affair where the Goryeo king accepted tributary relations and an envoy who crowned him king. On the same page you cited: In the late summer of 1019 another great army, including many tribal troops, was assembled to attack Kory6. But it was now clear to both sides that neither country could win a decisive victory. In 1020 King Hy6njong sent envoys to pay tribute to the Liao, and Shen-tsung graciously pardoned him, in 1022 sending an envoy to invest him formally as king. The tributary relationship was resumed, and envoys were regularly exchanged. When in 1031 Hyonjong died, his son and successor Wang Hum (Tokchong; r. 1031 — 4) was invested as king by the Liao court. From this date until almost the end of the Liao, Koryo remained a loyal vassal, and peace prevailed between the two states. Qiushufang (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Twichett describes it as such, but the literature all again points that first and foremost, the third conflict was a victory for Goryeo because the Khitan invasion force was destroyed. Second, while the sources note that Goryeo did submit itself to Liao/Khitan suzerainty,

Multiple other scholars that were all cited in the Wikipedia page describe it as an outright victory (both the third war and the overall conflict). The following are their statements (removed Twichett as we discussed him already).

Dr Rossabi, China historian at Columbia University: "Peace came after the especially convincing Koryo victory in 1018, with Koryo keeping its Yalu territory but breaking off relations with Song China and accepting Liao suzerainty."

Dr Cohen, American-East Asian historian at UMBC. "On this occasion, Koryo destroyed the invading Khitan army and won an enduring peace with the Kihtans, without any territorial losses."

Connolly, Peter; Gillingham, Emeritus Professor of History at the London School of Economics. "On the way back, Kang defeated Xiao at Kuju, surrounding and destroying the Khitan army."

John Bowman, " The Mongolian-Khitan invasions of the late tenth century challenge the stability of the Koryo government, but a period of prosperity follows the defeat of the Khitan in 1018.."

Hugh Dyson Walker, "The Third and final Qitan invasion was foiled by General Kang, in a decisive defeat which forced them to accept peace terms. Qitans had seriously challenged Koryo, but Koryo military leaders arose to the occasion three times."

R. G. Grant. This one is too long to quote as it is half a page, but at the end it describes how Goryeo destroyed the invasion force during the third war and it ensured its survival.

Multiple scholars, "Goryeo forces achieved decisive victories over retreating Khitan forces."

Yi, Korean historian, "Subsequently the Khitan launched several small-scale attacks, to press demands for Hyŏnjong's appearance at their court and surrender of the region of the Six Garrison Settlements, before mounting their third great invasion in 1018. Led by Hsiao P'ai-ya, this time the Khitan army was harassed at every turn and then, retreating, was all but annihilated by a massive Koryŏ attack at Kuju (Kusŏng) executed by Kang Kam-ch'an. The Koryŏ victory was so overwhelming that scarcely a few thousand of the 100,000 man invasion force survived. The Khitan invasions of Koryŏ thus ended in failure. Koryŏ had resolutely resisted foreign aggression and had driven the invaders back. The result was that the two nations worked out a settlement and peaceful relations were maintained between them thereafter."

Remco Breuker "Against the background of the crushing defeat inflicted upon the Liao armies by Kang and continued tense relations between Liao and Koryo..."

This one discusses Kuju as a "sweeping victory"

Seth, considered one of the leading scholars on Korean history, states "The Koreans defeated this force at Kuju fortress under the command of Kang...'

We have multiple sources by various scholars from different countries all stating that the third invasion ended in Koryo's military victory over the Liao, all of them universally agreeing that the invasion force was defeated and destroyed. So the consensus is that the third invasion was militarily defeated and that Koryo had won as all of them described. A key point that many of the authors raise is that Koryo had suceeded in maintaining its territorial integrity, which the Liao had aimed at violating, and generally that the war ensured Koryo's survival. I also remember somewhere long the article that Koryo had promised for the Liao to have their monarch come personally to pay tribute, but then they reneged on this promise, which further emphasizes that Koryo got territorial gains and preserved national sovereignty (as the scholars note) while having to only have symbolic Liao suzerainty. The Wikipedia article for Goryeo itself emphasizes that Goryeo's national sovereignty wasnt compromised until the Mongol Invasions. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of these sources do not mention the new army and threat of invasion in the aftermath and that as a result, the Goryeo king capitulated to some, but not all, diplomatic demands, such as accepting an envoy to crown him and his successor as king. Severance of relations with Song and acceptance of Liao suzerainty also does not speak of a victory. The dispute is not that Goryeo won the Battle of Kuju or its effect on the outcome of the war, but that it ended it diplomatic negotiations and the threat of continued war, which it did. Qiushufang (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Kuku cannot be seperated from either the third war or the conflict as a whole, because it is what ensured the end of the conflict and the third war. Wikipedia's template on this states the following.

Template:Infobox military conflict

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

The Battle of Kwiju was what immediately ended the war itself, the Goryeo victory destroyed the Khitan invasion force, and forced them to end the conflict. Kuku cannot be seperated from the war and conflict because it immediately triggered the end of all further conflict.

Additionally, the new army and threat of another invasion should be in the aftermath section, but that itself cannot be actually considered to be a part of the conflict because the new army was not deployed and sent into Goryeo to fight. The conflict ended when the Khitan army was destroyed and the Liao decided to not send a new army in afterwards. If anything, the fact that the sources all omit and don't state this information suggests just how unimportant it was for the historians to consider in regards to the wars as a whole.

Again, the Khitan left the conflict with almost all its war aims in failure, whether it be its desires to seize the former Goguryeo territory that Goryeo held (one of its casus bellus claims was that the Liao were the successors of Goguryeo and that they deserved the land, which Goryeo refuted in reply stating that it was the successor of Goguryeo), and so the Liao demanded that Goryeo cede territories along the Yalu River. This ended in failure.

The recognition of the Goryeo king's legitimacy itself was also actually adds credence to a Korean victory rather than a diplomatic resolution. The Liao had refused to recognize the legitimacy of Hyeonjong of Goryeo, who had come to power via a coup prior to the second war, as his predecessor Mokjong had been overthrown and later killed. Part of the Liao pretense for invading Goryeo was after Mokjong's overthrow, the Liao were coming in to punish Goryeo. Having failed this, they withdrew without achieving their demands and never again invaded Goryeo, and giving legitimacy to Hyeongjong again suggests Goryeo won the conflict precisely because the very monarch that the Liao refused to recognize (And triggered the second and third wars over by calling him illegitimate) ended up being given legitimacy by the Liao shows that Goryeo gained from this legitimization, not the Liao.

Finally, "But it was now clear to both sides that neither country could win a decisive victory." is not the complete telling of the situation, ""Understanding the difficulty of achieving a decisive victory, in 1020 King Hyeonjong resumed sending tribute, and in 1022 the Khitans officially recognized the legitimacy of King Hyeonjong's reign." Again pointing on the legitimacy and nominal submission claim, the quote itself shows that the Khitans recognizing the legitimacy of Hyeongjong was a win for Goryeo, not the Liao.

The submission itself was nominal. The source you cited states it too. It calls it "nominal submission" and saying "at the price of nominal submission" which essentially downplays the Liao suzerainty, which is heavily different from actual submission.

Also, the immediate end of the war was the Battle of Kwiju, again the conflict ended because of Kwiju which directly ended the war in Goryeo's favor. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Not considering the threat of invasion as part of the conflict seems to be WP:OR as that is what is mentioned in the source quoted, and to dismiss it as other sources do not mention it is interpretation. The conflict did not end with the Khitan army was destroyed, as then there would be no need for the Goryeo king to accept Liao envoys or to submit to "nominal submission". Further, it is disputed if Goryeo severed ties with Song, and if they did as some sources claim, then it is more than just nominal submission, as that would be real geopolitical realignment in return for peace. Qiushufang (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It isn't WP:OR,I disagree with that assertion given that again we have 11 sources by various leading experts on Korea that do not mention this at all especially given that a lot of these scholars and historians dedicated part of the Goryeo-Khitan War into their books (or in some cases entire sections).

The war did end with the Khitan army destroyed, we have multiple sources stating this that I cited in my Talk page earlier, I'll bring up against the most relevant ones explictly stating that the invading Khitan army was quote "destroyed" or "annhilated".

Dr Cohen, American-East Asian historian at UMBC. "On this occasion, Koryo destroyed the invading Khitan army and won an enduring peace with the Kihtans, without any territorial losses."

Connolly, Peter; Gillingham, Emeritus Professor of History at the London School of Economics. "On the way back, Kang defeated Xiao at Kuju, surrounding and destroying the Khitan army."

Yi, Korean historian, "...[the] Khitan army was harassed at every turn and then, retreating, was all but annihilated by a massive Koryŏ attack at Kuju (Kusŏng) executed by Kang Kam-ch'an. The Koryŏ victory was so overwhelming that scarcely a few thousand of the 100,000 man invasion force survived..."

The sources repeatedly emphasize that the destruction of an entire Khitan army (90,000+ if sources are to be believed) with only a few thousand survivors (Yi, etc) means that this was a decisive military victory with an entire invasion army destroyed.

Again the source says it was nominal submission, and it is recognized that Goryeo was an independent state until the Mongol invasions. Rogers in his 1961 work states " The only terms Liao sent were a "declaration of vassalage" and the release of a detained Liao envoy" which are a farcry from their original terms, and we know that the declaration of vassalage was a nominal submission because multiple sources say that Goryeo and Liao basically concluded the war on equal terms Bielenstein in his 2000s work.

Going back around, we know from the sources that the Liao at the start of the conflict 1) Demanded Goryeo's territory on the Yalu as well as the old territory of Goguryeo because the Liao claimed they were Goguryeo's successor which Goryeo stated it was. 2) Demanded Goryeo's submission and even tried to secure the demands of the Goryeo monarch coming to the Liao monarch to pay personal homage to Great Liao 3) After Mokjong's overthrow, were attempting to punish Goryeo and his successor Hyeonjong, they did not even recognize Hyeonjong as the legitimate monarch of Goryeo.

At the end of the conflict, after Gwiju led to the destruction of the invading Khitan army (again as sources pointed out), Goryeo 1) kept all the land that it held from old Goguryeo and even gained new land from the conflict 2) Paid only nominal submission to Liao, and as many sources (by Westerners/English speaking historians, not Korean historians!) point out the Liao and Goryeo essentially ended the conflict as equals and 3) The Liao recognized Hyeonjong as the legitimate monarch of Goryeo which they explictly aimed at not doing when they started the second and third conflict because a major explanation for why they were invading Korea was because they were out to punish Koryo and its illegitimate monarch.

As I conclude this edit, I see you have restored it back https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goryeo%E2%80%93Khitan_War&oldid=1188379804. If you don't mind, I will re-add the previous sources that were on it but I appreciate the engagement on the Talk Page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I do mind, as it was previously tagged with excessive citations. At most there should be only 3-5 high quality sources imo. Qiushufang (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove some of the citations that aren't as expansive on the topic (the single liners for example) but keep the most relevant ones. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chungsuk of Goryeo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Noktundo disruption cont'd

Hi Sunnyediting99,

sigh I know they're back...

I have created a long-term abuse infopage in my userspace here: User:AP 499D25/LTA Tracking/Noktundo bludgeoner, where I have listed pretty much every single IP address that I think this person used to disrupt the articles and talk pages.

So far, there seem to be eight distinct IP ranges that could be partially blocked from the targeted pages.

Reason why I created this page is because, administrators are reluctant to protect talk pages for long (or especially indefinite) periods of time, as they are the page that IPs/new editors go to when the article is protected. Doing so prevents other innocent editors from being able to engage in talk page discussions as well. And so placing a couple of rangeblocks may be a more feasible option due to the much lesser 'collateral damage' produced.

Feel free to add any new IP addresses to the list, even past ones, as it would help us determine how big or small the IP ranges are! And if you file a request for administrative action yourself, you can link to this userspace LTA infopage for admins to see at a glance all the details and IP addresses/ranges used by the person.

I intend to file another AN/I thread the next time this person disrupts talk pages or articles with the same POV pushing again, specifically requesting to admins that partial page range blocks be placed, as well as linking to this infopage I created.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello AP,

Yes unfortunately it appears they are back, I have to say it is quite remarkable just how many IPs they're capable of utilizing. I do understand and agree with your point, I don't think anonymous editors should be punished from having to jump through hoops all because of one individual. I will bookmark your link then and add any future IPs that are blatantly disrupting (or sometimes if its more subtle, hints of disrupting) from the vandalizer.

Thank you so much for your support on this topic, it's actions like these that keep Wikipedia's community going. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I have made a rangeblock request over at an admin's talk page: User talk:Daniel Case#Noktundo disruption part II: rangeblock request.

I'll see how it goes; if not, I will write it on WP:ANI. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw recently, I appreciate your assistance and help on this intiative. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)