User talk:Komdori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, Noted your request for move for Asashoryu. I have made comment explaining why I don't agree. Can I suggest you remember in talk pages to use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign and datestamp your contributions. Cheers Nashikawa 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the suggestion! I responded as well (oops, now I did, forgot to hit save); I can see how both views have some merit.Komdori 06:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support on some copyright problem. I appreciate that.--Questionfromjapan 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imjin War

hi, not sure what you're trying to do, but please stop the move war. there was a discussion and consensus (Talk:Imjin_War/archive_1#Rename) and settled move. you should have begun a new discussion if you had concerns about the name. please do not move again without discussion. thanks. Appleby 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly that was the opposite result of the discussion. Don't move it again. Komdori 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

as far as i can tell, there were five for the move, one weak oppose. are we reading the same discussion archive? it seems you're the unilateral initiator of a "move war". please discuss first. thank you. Appleby 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're looking at different ones. The one I saw had no vote, and didn't add up the way you suggested--you and two buddies thought it should be moved, two others didn't seem so enthusiastic. At the very least, it's a controversial move, so should go through the correct process. Please take your own advice and discuss--thanks for your input and contributions, though! Komdori 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven-Year War

After seeing the move flurry myself, it seems pretty clear someone wants to get their "pet word" in the title of an article... weird. Due to the minor relevance of the event to most I'm not surprised it slipped under the radar. I'll be watching that article. LactoseTI 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imjin Wars

Well, if you didn't want to bug an admin, you have unfortunately failed, as I am one :( The page is now move-protected. I will check the page history to see if there is misconduct. I recommend listing the page at WP:RM or trying to come to a consensus on the talk page. Don't worry, nothing is screwed up - there is just about no action on Wikipedia that can't be reversed. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 12 hours

And I'm afraid that you've violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Imjin Wars, so I regret that I must block you for 12 hours. These are your reverts:

• 1st, 18:54
• 2nd, 19:08
• 3rd, 19:29
• 4th, 23:49
• 5th, 23:55

Please feel free to continue editing when your block expires, but remember that sterile revert wars are unhelpful to the Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

unblock | Ah! "In whole or in part"--I get it. Well, I had interpretted the rule to mean "in whole or in part (for the same change)," not for unrelated reverts. The first three are to remove copyrighted material, the last two were to try to sort out the move someone decided to do. I now understand the policy; I don't plan to edit the page at all until we can reach some consensus on the talk page. I've noticed some admin's lift the block in this case and would be happy if I could edit without waiting today (I have some non-history related articles I wanted to update). I would have appreciated a warning first; I didn't know this is how the policy worked. If you look at the edits, I was careful to avoid violating it as I understood it; I did not revert the name after it was changed (yet again) even though I surely could have. I have reviewed the policy in more detail and now understand it. Komdori 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm denying your unblock request. You're only blocked for 12 hours, while WP:3RR allows for up to a 24-hour block, so you've already been shown some leniency. But 3RR is just one rule. The point of it is that edit warring, especially when both sides make edits as they prefer, ignoring other objections, are disruptive to wikipedia. Frankly, the fact that you were aware of WP:3RR and were trying to "game the system" doesn't speak well. When you come back, stop edit warring and engage in discussion: this kind of activity is unproductive and disrputive. Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how stopping editing at 3 edits is "gaming the system"--I showed no (and had no) intention of changing the name again after the day had passed. Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that more than one revert is "gaming" because I know I'm allowed up to three? In either case, I don't intend to change anything controversial, and would like to participate in the ongoing discussion. It was my understanding that "in most instances a block can be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior," which I clearly am doing, and that blocks are not punitive, but preventative. Komdori 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In accord with the above text: {{unblock | It accords with the comment, "in most instances a block can be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior," which I definitely do, and in accords with the idea that "blocks are not punitive, but preventative." Humbly yours, [[User:Komdori|Komdori]] 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}}

I've granted your unblock request on the good-faith assumption that you will avoid revert warring in the future. Please note that any further violation of the policy, particularly today, will result in a much longer block since good faith will be less easy to assume. I hope your future editing experience is less bumpy. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. Komdori 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to a warning, this is solely to make people aware of the 3RR if they were not already. You referenced it in an edit summary, therefore you were already aware. I'm glad that this has worked out for you. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand; again, sorry for the trouble--it won't happen again. Komdori 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Email

Hello Komdori

Is the discussion you want that personal to discuss outside of Wikipedia?

Its uncomfortable addresing information such as an email address. Good friend100 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you enable other users to email you, I can send you an email through wikipedia without seeing your address; you can decide if you want to respond. Komdori 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I turn on this option to enable other users to email me? Good friend100 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When I created this account, I didn't type in my email in the "email" section because it was not required. No offense, but I cannot trust you because I have no idea who you are. Good friend100 22:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:YellowTerror.jpg

You have modified Image:YellowTerror.jpg to add a tag claiming it has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Over half an hour later, It has still not been listed there. Please take care of this, or explain your modifications. -- Infrogmation 18:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was done automatically! I will fix it now. Komdori 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed; also for a couple others I didn't do it on... sorry; thanks for telling me. Komdori 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Comments

The "warning" turned into a blown out argument because the other side began to look down on me because I'm only a "high schooler" and because I am a "Korean nationalist". I understand about "trolling" but I don't think I am "trolling" because I don't go around on talk pages and write all sorts of POV comments all over. Good friend100 13:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he looked down on you for that reason; to be honest I think you were being a little over sensitive (or perhaps you were trying to twist the conversation away from the real issue?). In any case, it doesn't matter--the point is this: don't post unrelated talk on article talk pages (Takeshima on Yasukuni Shrine, discussing my nationality/my level of patriotism on Hideyoshi's Invasions, etc.) Futhermore, saying my name is ironic because I'm not acting "Korean enough" for you is awfully close to a personal attack--in fact, I think it fits the definition perfectly. Komdori 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One more note--I think it's important for Koreans to take the initiative in making things have a NPOV when it comes to Korean articles. Don't strike the most extreme Korean viewpoint you can, and expect some person with a Japanese point of view to come balance it out. Strive to make it have a NPOV from the start, and if someone comes with a point of view attack, then they look stupid. If you sink to their level by making your own edit that is so obviously from a Korean point of view it just looks like you're no better, and confuses the issue entirely. Komdori 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You are only on his side because he supports your "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" as a title. If you think its a personal attack, then its my fault. Good friend100 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also...I am wondering about the email thing between you and me. Good friend100 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a little "good faith"--I'm on no ones side. Just I don't understand why you automatically assume people are racist/biggots. I think he was criticizing your ideas, although he might have been a little vocal about a guess of why you had those ideas. It does indeed seem you may be feeling a mild Persecution complex. Komdori 16:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are racists and biggots all over where I live. And I already asked about this email thing? Good friend100 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Tadaejin.jpg

The only thing that i'm sure is that this painting had been achieved more than a hundred years ago, and that is also available on history books, websites and can be considered as in public domain, but if you want to delete that picture i wouldn't care about. I just added the original external link where that picture come from as a reference. Regards --Whlee 07:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okinotori

On http://www.geocities.com/k2cddx/wcd051176.html, search for "Parece Vela"--Ratzer 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your rv of my edit in Dokdo

'disputed' should be carefully used. For the same reason, 'administered' was removed, too. I recognize that Japan's trying harder and harder to make their claim international, but it is still controversial to set it as 'disputed'. So it's better to go without it. In discussion, it's much discussed about 'disputed' but there was no consensus. In that case, it's better to go without the term. The opening paragraph already starts with Dokdo is one of several names...

If you still want to put 'disputed' in the opening paragraph, please begin a new discussion and get consensus. Until then, I ask you to remove it. Ginnre 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to use disputed, but not to go so far as to say "internationally recognized dispute." These days even Korea talks about Japan's "claim," so they don't mind to say its disputed, I think. Probably you are Korean, too, right? I think the best philosophy is for us to try to make the articles as unbiased as possible, and when others come (for example, people with Japanese point of view) then it is more obvious.

To be honest, I think no one cares about these islands if it is not for the fighting purpose. This makes the word "dispute" really important, don't you think? Komdori 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion lead to that kind of consensus. Japan claims it, but it's not disputed. You don't know the difference? Sure Korea knows that Japan 'claims'. I ask you to remove it again. Or begin a new discussion. Ginnre 21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the problem what Forestfarmer had. It led to a pretty long discussion and edit war so I suggest you hurry up and solve it. I have already emphasized what the word "dispute" really means between Korea and Japan.

Korea definitely recongizes Japan's claim. But you should already know that Korea has put itself in a position where it believes Japan has a mere one sided claim because Korea just recognizes Dokdo as their own territory.

Korea doesn't see this as "oh we are both claiming it. It could be Korean or Japanese territory". I don't think Korea would want to give Japan the chance to put a toe on Dokdo for a claim.

"Dispute" is misleading in the article. "One sided claim" might be POV and should be added only if a sentence on Korea's view on Dokdo is written down. Good friend100 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Recently I'm coming across with you and LactoseTI nearly at the same time quite often. Usually when I change your edits, LactoseTI reverts them or you two have so similar specific interest on particular spots in articles. Is it a coincidence? I have that experience in Imjin War and Dokdo. It's strange. Ginnre 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I mainly watch the naming dispute/Sea of Japan/Dokdo/Okinotori page. If someone makes an edit to a page I like, I often look at their contributions and see what other edits they make. Since they edit one thing I find interesting, probably they edit other things I find interesting. Komdori 21:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just too specific and happnes too often. Ginnre 21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Man, sometimes you look like just another version of The Notorious 'Nanshu', who's a Japanese right-winged nationalist clocking in NPOVness-Keeper cape. Are you a Japanese, right? - an anonymous expat

No, I'm not Japanese. I believe the best way to fight people who push POV edits is to make the articles as neutral as possible. When others come along and insert their edits, it becomes very obvious that they are pushing something. Unlike other Koreans who seem to think the best way to fight POV is with an equally POV edit, I think striving for the neutral ground is the best approach. Can you mention which edit or edits in particular you are discussing? Komdori 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if you fight fire with fire? A so called neutral stance and neutral edits just makes the Korean position in the article weaker. Because you have to just write in misleading information about "disputes" and you also have to write down what Japan's view is to.

Thats the bad thing about POV. You never get to hear full information about Dokdo itself until you search through the discussion page. POV just restricts the things that could be written down in the article.

I'm not saying this because NPOV is weakening my case, its because I really disagree with the policy. I thought over it the past weeks. Its just not it. I thought Wikipedia's goal was to create the best and most informative encyclopedia with the cooperation of editors to an article. The NPOV policy is just ironic. Good friend100 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Really read and think about this more. It's not just a policy--it's one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia is based (the second one). If you disagree with it, you are basically saying you disagree with what Wikipedia is.

Slinging POV mud back at editors who make bad edits (or worse, making a pre-emptive strike) isn't going to solve anything. For example, you seem to have an interest in the Korean articles, and the Korean point of view is often at odds with the Japanese or Chinese one. If an editor comes along and sees obvious point of view edits coming from one source, it seems clear who is the problem. If both sides are "fighting fire with fire," as you seem to support, the situation is much more murky to a neutral observer.

You seem to be reasonable--my suggestion again is simply try to compromise and find a version with which everyone can live. Yes, that might mean that the Korean position is not as strong as you like--but that's reflects the reality. Probably no one would like other people who have arguments against them, but it doesn't make them go away. We can be proactive and head off the arguments by framing them fairly ourselves. Komdori 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hwacha

Hi Komdori, your opinion on the 'pop culture' debate would be most welcome. Although HappyApple, Good_friend100 and myself are taking the week off to think things over, that should not in any way prevent you from contributing to the discussion. The way that I read it, WP:DR does not apply to you, only to those of us who have actively engaged in the debate/edit war up to this point. Please leave a note on Talk:Hwacha and/or User_talk:Azeari and let me know what you think. Regards, Matt 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that, your opinion is welcome, whatever it is, please feel free to express whatever you think is appropriate on Talk:Hwacha. We will probably all be discussing some more tomorrow, Monday, and any more input from any new voices is probaly going to be helpful. User:Pedant 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea

Hi, Komdori. I see you are Korean, which baffles me further.

Do you really want the article as "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"?

Isn't that the last thing you want? Dont' you want to advocate "Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592" instead?

Is Hideyoshi that nice? Do you want Hitler's Invasion of Europe as World War II title? You simply don't make any sense.

Only reason they are advocating Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is because Japanese Invasion of Korea in ... variations have no Google search & they can't support their claims.

Which means that only option for you is to advocate Imjin War or Waeran. Seven Year War gets mixed up with French-Indian war & can't be substantiated.

Also, do you really want "invasion of Korea"? I am very weary of "invasion of Korea". I don't want to picture Korea being invaded whenever I visit this article. Nor do I want Americans to imagine Japanese Samurai's killing Koreans in successful battles in their "invasion".

Invasion of Korea has many bad implications. Imperialism, slavery, overtaxation. Japanese occupied Korea only until 60 years ago. What are you thinking.

Where is your Admiral Yi. Hwacha. Turtle ship. Jang Yeongsil. Sejong. I don't believe it.

Please reconsider. (Wikimachine 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

I asked the same question but he simply says Korean editors should respond to the POVness of the article with NPOV and he indirectly called me a biggot.

Komdori believes he is doing right by being "NPOV" but its just making your position worse because technically in your terms of NPOV, "invasion" is POV, as LactoseIT has already said.

Now what? You want "invasion"? So are you breaking the Wikipedia policy of NPOV? "Invasion" is POV because according to LactoseIT, it can imply that the invading country can look bad. O K.

So I suppose you actually want "Hideyoshi's Conflict of Korea"? Good friend100 18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First, please don't forget that Korea was invaded and many, many were killed in the invasions. I know the image is unpleasant, but it's important to remember it the way it happened (as much as we can--so much history from that time is permanently lost). Second, Hideyoshi deserves the largest share of blame (or credit, I suppose) for the invasions. I think this is why most books do actually refer to it this way, and this is why most know it by this name. You can't have the heroes without having the troubles. On the surface, you might think people are arguing for a Japanese point of view title, but in reality they are actually painting the picture of what happened--and they are not trying to avoid saying that it was an outright invasion by Hideyoshi. When you actually have people admitting this is the most common name of the event, I don't see why you are trying to obscure the title. All too often (rightly or wrongly) Japanese are accused of whitewashing the truth with pretty words, but this time it seems we are doing it for them. Part of what makes me proud of Korean history is how people overcame the obstacles to become, for the most part, a respectable nation today.

Good friend100, I never called you a biggot--you were advocating fighting "fire with fire." You were basically suggesting to combat POV edits with POV edits. This clearly is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and isn't going to work. Komdori 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. My statements were very emotional, so they could either appeal to you dramatically or be offensive the other way. I think that "Hideyoshi's" is from Japanese historical point of view & context. Because history of Korea is not widely studied, Japanese historical view is more common in the US. (Wikimachine 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

I understand your motivation. They were kind of strong words--I actually kind of thought you were questioning my patriotism--but in the end I just believed you might have thought I was just trying to choose a title for the wrong reasons. I agree it is a shame that history is taught from the Japanese perspective so often (even worse, it's not only in the US, but it happens around most of the globe!). However, since this is the case, I think it's natural that some of the titles might appear to be from the Japanese perspective. People can more easily find them and then read up on the details. One thing that seems good to me is that "invading" is no longer a great thing/status symbol. Most people who see it will be very critical of the participants, I believe. Komdori 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you so provocative?

I don't know what I have done wrong. Then you go ahead and update the link in Korea. The link was not valid that'w why I updated. As your comment in my talk page is wrong and provocative, I ask you to delete or correct what you left in my talk page. You could have been a bit nicer or discrete rather than branding me vadalizing. Ginnre 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't brand you a vandal. Many don't realize the policies of changing links to redirects is actually vandalism, so I was letting you know. I left a response on your talk page as well. Komdori 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to apologize. I feel offensed. Ginnre 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page. Simmer down a bit. Regardless of the fact that you feel offended, letting you know the policy is not an inappropriate action, so why demand an apology? Learn and move on. Komdori 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP is so a strict place and the policy you are talking about is just a minor one. There are much worse things going on in WP. I don't think I made that big mistake to be warned by you. Why do you bother so much into so a minute detail? Ginnre 18:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No one will learn if no one helps by pointing it out. It was not meant as a punishment, it was to let you know. Komdori 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Its still a problem when someone else feels insulted when you don't think so. Good friend100 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About you

I saw that Wikimachine had some suspiscions about you, as stated on a talk page.

Komdori: I don't have an opinion about you being a sockpuppet, but what I do doubt, like Wikimachine said, is your claim to be Korean. Your actions just don't reflect those of a Korean's. This is not meant to offend you in any sort of way, but I seriously doubt that a Korean would go against so many other Korean editors and ideas. You have almost never supported any Korean viewpoints. Are you making a fraud of yourself in order to shield yourself from comments? I just don't understand. KiteString 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I live in the US now, but originally from outside of Daegu. I'll quote what I said above: "I believe the best way to fight people who push POV edits is to make the articles as neutral as possible. When others come along and insert their edits, it becomes very obvious that they are pushing something. Unlike other Koreans who seem to think the best way to fight POV is with an equally POV edit, I think striving for the neutral ground is the best approach."

Another thing is, I believe that if you have a reputation of being reasonable and fair-minded, when you are in favor or oppose something, others are more likely to listen.

We need to stop having a world "minority attitude." It seems that if you try to be neutral, people accuse you of being a traitor. Just being a Korean doesn't mean everything you do has to glorify it. Sure, we were beat before, we had failures, and losses, and were treated badly. But what is important is that those failures were temporary--Korea is still here and it still is progressing. You can only recognize how far we've come and how much has been accomplished by looking at where we started. Komdori 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I never in any way meant to offend you. This is less about you as an editor and more about you as a person. As an editor, you are completely correct in all that you said above. However, it still puzzles me that it seems you never once defended a Korean viewpoint. Correct me if i'm wrong. I'm not talking about POV, just the tendency you have to dissagree with Korean editors. All that you said above could be absolutely true, but also could be bogus. (No offense intended) I just still doubt your nationality. =KiteString= 19:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

hello. can you expand the page of Hoeryong? i'm intresting in this town. what do you know about this her? Superzohar 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hoeryong

i think this paragraph is on hoeryong (korean). can you translate this for english please? 인구 13만 4524(1991 추정). 동쪽은 은덕군 ·새별군 ·나진선봉시, 서쪽은 무산군, 남쪽은 청진시 ·부령군, 북쪽은 온성군 및 두망강을 사이에 두고 중국 지린성[吉林省]과 접한다. 함경산맥이 시역의 중앙을 가로질러 뻗어 있어 산지가 많으나, 두망강 연안에는 비교적 넓은 평야가 전개된다.

함경산맥에는 오봉산(1,329m) ·민사봉(1,278m) ·굴산(991m) 등이 솟아 있고, 그 밖의 지역에는 고연두산(841m) ·까치봉(1,084m) ·신봉(1,144m) ·서재산(1,109m) 등이 있다. 회령천(33.7km) ·보을천 ·팔을천 등이 중국과의 경계를 이루는 두만강으로 흘러들며, 이들 하천 유역에 회령분지가 발달해 있다.

기반암은 화강편마암이며 토양은 갈색산림토이나 하천 유역에는 일부 충적토가 분포한다. 산림은 군 면적의 80%이며 주요 수종은 소나무 ·잎갈나무 ·참나무 등이다. 연평균기온 5.5℃, 1월 평균기온 －12.6℃, 8월 평균기온 21.1℃이며 연평균강수량은 500mm이다.

1952년 12월 북한 행정구역 개편 때 용흥면 일부와 보을면을 유산군으로 분리 ·독립시키고, 나머지 지역인 회령읍 ·창두면 ·화풍면과 팔을면의 5개리, 벽성면의 4개리, 부령군 서상면의 1개리, 종성군 남산면의 2개리를 통합하여 군 영역을 재조정하였다. 1991년 7월 시로 승격되었다.

현재 행정구역은 회령 ·망양 ·궁심 ·세천 ·중봉 ·중도 ·유선∼2의 8개동과 풍산 ·무산 ·창효 ·덕흥 ·오봉 ·대덕 ·창태 ·학포 ·낙생 ·금생 ·원산 ·신흥 ·사을 ·인계 ·남산 ·영수 ·행영 ·방원 ·굴산 ·계하 ·계상 ·송학 ·용천 ·벽성 ·홍산 ·오류 ·성동 ·성북의 28개리로 이루어져 있다.

주요 농산물은 옥수수 ·콩 ·쌀 ·채소 ·잎담배 등이며 그 밖에 석탄 ·석회석의 생산이 많다. 공업은 탄광기계 ·직물 ·제지 ·제약 ·제당 ·도자기 제조가 성하다. 교통편으로는 함북선 ·회령탄광선 철도와 청진 ·무산 ·온성 ·나진선봉시 등지로 통하는 도로가 있다. 명승지로는 오국산성 ·오대암사 ·오동 원시유적지(북한 사적 69) 등이 있다. Superzohar 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked indef as sock of LactoseTI used to increase the consensus and vote-stacking according to the results of a checkuser [1]. pschemp | talk 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on conversation with the user, I have overturned the block on my own authority. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proud about japanese invasions?

hey, that is basically spitting at your own people, and especially me! im a descendant of "shinrip jangoon"(yes, the idiotic general". that invasion killed 3 million joseon people. rather than pride, the value of human life is more important than dignity and honor. I too, had a similar opinion as yours, but as I dug myself into the philosophical works and the classics, I get a different view. try reading "thus spoke zarathustra", by freidrich nietzsche. It will clear yur mind. Guar har har!66.214.242.93 23:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comfort women

Hi, thanks for your commentary.

I choose to let the statistics of Hata only on in the main article about comfort women because of the space available in the general article about war crimes.

Besides, even if his position must be known, I am not convinced of Hata's objectivity as he is very linked to Tsukurukai. Yoshimi seems more neutral.

--Flying tiger 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)