User talk:Michael Friedrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Michael Friedrich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, 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!  Kukini 14:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Nazi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nazi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content removal

Hi, please don't remove references (or other content) from articles. Thanks, HenryFlower 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They are only by Korean claims. Against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia should not stand either side of Korea or Japan.
Please see the discussion on Talk:Liancourt Rocks#POV about this very issue. Please try to work with other editors to improve the situation instead. -- Cjensen 16:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing references is vandalism. If you continue to vandalise articles, you will be blocked from editing. HenryFlower 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is vandalism at all. I believe those links are agains Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That is why I removed the reference. I wrote my idea on Talk:Liancourt Rocks#POV. See you there.Michael Friedrich18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't. HenryFlower 17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just finished writing! SORRY PAL! But I'm going to bed now. (I live in Australia. It is midnight.) See you tomorrow.Michael Friedrich18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. HenryFlower 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WAIT! I did not even removed geocites websites. I only added both Japanese and Korean claims. There's no reason I am kicked out from wikipedia. I left the reference as they are and wrote my opinion on talk. What is the problem? I don't understand!Michael Friedrich19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You again removed references from the article. Really, don't do it. HenryFlower 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What!? I didn't! Please look at [1]. You warned me "Removing references is vandalism. If you continue to vandalise articles, you will be blocked from editing." (I don't think so, though.) at 17:33, 14 May 2006. This is the edit I did after that. Did I remove references? NO! I just added both Japanese and Korean claims in order to maintain neutral point of view. I still think the references are POV and should be removed but I left them as they were and wrote my opinion on Talk:Liancourt Rocks#POV. I don't understand what you're saying. Michael Friedrich18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That edit removed no less than six references (which is quite impressive for a single edit). HenryFlower 19:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what is the problem. "quite impressive" its your POV. Those links just show how Koreans are taking this problem.(I strongly believe those reference are POV websites.) But Japanese government have different insistence. Did you read what I wroute on Talk? But I did not falsified the article. Korean claims stll exist on the article and I believe my edit made it more neutral since there's only Korean claims and no Japanese claims before my edit. I just thought we don't need those links any longer as long as the Korean claims which those websites support remain. And these websites are linked to from "Resource" too. I did my last edit in order to keep the article neutral. The "reference" even includes free geocities website. I don't think what I did is vandalism. I believe those reference are vandalism because they are against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.". You have no business blocking me from editing wikipedia. Michael Friedrich03:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I had a couple of questions and if you wouldn't mind answering them, I would appreciate it. In Talk:Liancourt you mentioned that the term "Dokdo" was not "internationally standardized" and seem to imply that this made the term "Dokdo" different than "Sekaku." My questions relate to that statement. What must be done for a term to be "internationally standardized"? In other words, what is the standard? Is it a legal standard or is this a standard based on international law or is this a general use standard? And is that the reason Dokdo is a point of view name but Senkaku isn't?

I've been trying to understand what facts could distinguish why Senkaku is not a point of view name but Dokdo is, and have been unable to see any differences. From what you've written, it seems that you are suggesting that Dokdo is the Korean point of view and so we should use Liancourt. But from a Chinese perspective, isn't the same true for the term Senkaku and wouldn't the logical conclusion to be to use the Pinnacle Islands instead? If you could explain what you meant, and any other argument I might be missing as to why Senkaku is a neutral name but Dokdo isn't, I would appreciate it because it would help me to better understand this debate.

Thanks for your time. Tortfeasor 07:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tortfeasor. I am very glad that your question is very rational although there are too many people who discuss this problem very emotionally.
Actually, I don't know much about Senkaku Islands disputes although I studied about the Liancourt Rocks disputes. What I wanted to say is adoption of the name of "Senkaku Islands" does not justify adoption of "Dokdo". I am not against proposing to move Senkaku Islands to the Pinnacle Islands. I am not against calling it Pinnacle Islands (although I am not for it). I did not say "the term "Dokdo" different than "Sekaku."" I did not mention Senkaku. That's all.
"An internationally standardized name" means a name that most people use. For example, the terms "Korea" and "Japan" are internationally standardized without doubt. Even though Koreans call their country "한국" and Japanese call theirs "日本", most people in the world and maps adopt Korea and Japan. I never found any maps in English calling Korea "Hanguk" or calling Japan "Nippon". Of cource they are only exonyms but if I say the name "Japan" should be changed into "Nippon", it may sound very nonsence because the name Japan is already internationally standardized. It depends on common sence whether one name is standardized or not.
As for the Liancourt Rocks, some maps call it Dokdo and some call it Takeshima and some call it Liancourt Rocks. Neither Dokdo or Takeshima cannot be said internationally standardized.
I also respect a legal standard. If the term Dokdo gets standardized in international court or the United Nations, I must say it is internationally standardized even if I am aginst calling it so.
I'll be glad this description ansewers your question. Thank you.
Michael Friedrich 12:39 20/05/06

[edit] You come off as a very angry person.

Unfortunately, Michael, your comments always seem to appear as being typed while you are upset. I wish you would take a deep breath and relax. I've wanted to comment on this before, but hesitated. I've noticed increasingly hostile posts from you to other Wikipedians though. Is Wikipedia becoming a source of anger and frustration for you? Perhaps you should take a break.--Sir Edgar 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not get what you are saying. I was told that " I think that you should propose your suggestion at another part of this note" by Reito-maguro. That is why I proposed a move of the article. I am not upset. What do you call "hostile posts"? Michael Friedrich 07:28 05/06/2006
I am talking about your posts in general.--Sir Edgar 07:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Show me some specific examples. I did not left so many posts these days. Michael Friedrich
Look at most of your posts and think about the reason why you type what you do. It's not really so much the content, but the tone.--Sir Edgar 08:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot think so. I believe I typed what I did very calmly. I am very sorry that you said such a thing. Maybe what I said seems to you nothing but emotional argument because you are against it. But I did not say the islets are Japanese territory. I only said the name of the article must remain neutral. I cannot think what I said is emotional.
There are many uncounted "oppose" vote. -> I suggested a new vote -> I was told "you should propose your suggestion at another part of this note". ->I proposed a new vote. Please tell me what is the problem. It may be true that my proposal is too early because the last vote has just ended. I already said I would withdraw my proposal if it was againt wikipedia rules.
You said "I've already explained why we shouldn't vote (for now)." but where? The Talk page is too long to find your remark. Michael Friedrich.

[edit] May I ask you to reconsider?

May I ask you to reconsider moving "Dokdo" back to "Liancourt Rocks"? The last time I counted, you only had 37.5% favoring "Liancourt Rocks". You need AT LEAST 60% to move it back. I strongly urge you not to do this. If you have to do this though, read Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow it very carefully. Good luck.--Endroit 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dokdo#Requested move shows that there are 15 people for calling it Dokdo and 34 are against it and 1 is neutral. I was tald "you should propose your suggestion at another part of this note" and that is why I proposed a move. If it is against wikipedia policy, I will withdraw the proposal. Michael Friedrich
I counted 8 more (signed) "oppose" votes that may possibly be considered as valid users at this point in time. That would make it 53.1% (17-15) in your favor. However, there may be those who don't vote the 2nd time around, and perhaps some sockpuppets on your side. Also, we don't know if there will be more or less "support" votes. And 53.1% is still not enough for a 60% consensus. Plus there are questions whether new users on your side qualify. There's no way for me to tell....--Endroit 07:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
?? 17-15? I found 34 oppose votes and 15 support votes inTalk:Dokdo#Requested move. Which ones did you count? Michael Friedrich
You definitely do NOT have 34 in your favor, because a lot of those are sockpuppets and/or one-time users. Typically, when you conduct a poll, you're supposed to restrict votes to users having over 100 edits. This is important to discourage sockpuppets and other cheaters. If you don't do that, you will be accused of doing an invalid poll, and your bid will ultimately fail. Anyways, I suggest you check each user for the number of edits they have first. Based on the "100 minimum" rule, you may not even have 17 in your favor.--Endroit 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you will have to ram the vote in, instead of using a more natural method. I simply put up the poll after noticing an inconsistency in the application of NPOV and people voted. Your effort seems forced and counting on the support of non-Wikipedians, sock puppet accounts, and new users who registered simply to vote. If you believe in any of the ideals of Wikipedia, you know this is wrong.--Sir Edgar 08:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going ahead with it, you have to list an entry in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Do you need help with it?--Endroit 10:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/User_talk%7EMichael_Friedrich_2888.html"