User talk:Komdori/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Asashoryu

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)


Thank you

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

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. Mangojuicetalk 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)

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)

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)

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)

Possibly unfree Image:Tadaejin.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tadaejin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Komdori 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Okinotori

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

Port Hamilton

Port Hamilton is the article I e-mailed you about. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the requested move. —LactoseTIT 06:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. However, I'm not sure about this specific case. Searching google for (NAME korea -wikipedia), with various possible names, implies that variations resembling Komundo are a bit more common than "Port Hamilton" is; "Geomundo" is the most common such variant. Moreover, in cases where no name is dominant and several are about equally common, I would tend to err on the side of using the name preferred by the local inhabitants.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response; I think although we have few other tools to rely on, Google may be a little misleading considering how extraordinarily obscure these islands are (I get more for Port Hamilton, but actually few for either--when the total results for either name on Google is < 100 or 200, with questionable quality, you're really talking about a "forgotten" place). I believe them to be more mentioned in print than online at this point, mostly because no one really knows (or cares) about them. Anyway, thanks for poking around a little about it. Komdori 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And this is where the problem lies with google searches as a justifying thing. Its too inaccurate to make a conclusion unless there is a huge difference. For example, when "Cheonji" was searched by another editor he/she got 9 searches while when I did it, I had about 3,000. Its too ambiguious and google searches cannot be used to justify something unless the margin is huge.

And you are right, nobody cares about them and that is why the local name should be used. It is almost impossible to find an accurate number but the US doesn't even care about the islands so the most commonly used local name should be used. Good friend100 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are almost right--historians do care about them; it's a really interesting time period, and these islands play an extremely important role there. That being said, there are limited history resources for obscure areas online--but not in print. In print, many roll across these islands through class or study. When they do, it will be under the English name--that's the main motivation for the geographic/historical naming convention. Komdori 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? And what time period are u reffering to? Historians don't represent the entire American population and their views on the island. There are always people greatly interested in one thing.

It is obvious that google searches are not the greatest in determining how common a word is used. I do not think this island is significant enough for somebody to write a book for it, unless the book is about Korean islands or something. I'm sure they will use both names. Korean (since it is a Korean island) and english (because that is probably what most english speakers are comfortable using with, even if they have never heard of the island before). Good friend100 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the late 19th century. Please don't focus on how the United States treats things. In any case, historians (everywhere) form the main group of people interested in this place, due to its obscurity. There are books and papers written about it, but mostly from the aspect of the conflict going on at the time, where Port Hamilton was a significant player. It also helped further develop and define British policy in the region.
Since, as you say "most english speakers" use the name, probably because they "are comfortable," that is where it goes--by the Wikipedia naming policy. This is important--it is what allows some of the other Korean named articles (that I think should stay with the Korean names) keep their Korean names. Komdori 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
And why should I not focus on how the US treats things. The US really makes up the majority of english speaking users on the english Wikipedia.
And which conflict are you talking about that involved the British? Good friend100 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A common criticism of Wikipedia is that it is US-centric. American's don't "own" everything, and although there are many native speakers there, it doesn't mean that the articles need to be written from an American perspective.
As for the history you were wondering about--check out The Great Game, it's a very interesting period in time (something besides cowboys running around on the great frontier was actually going on in the world ;) ). Port Hamilton played an important role after the Panjdeh Incident; had World War I not eventually come along, it's likely Russia and Britain would have come to blows. In fact, Port Hamilton is notable for this and only this reason. Komdori 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It says that it was a dispute in central asia. I don't see any connection to port hamilton. Good friend100 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From the Port Hamilton article itself:

In April 1885, Port Hamilton was occupied by three ships of the British Royal Navy on orders from the Admiralty. This was to forestall Russian advances in the face of the Panjdeh Incident in Afghanistan. Port Hamilton served as a counterbalance to the Russian naval base at Vladivostok. By occupying Port Hamilton, the British could prevent Russian advances in east Asia, and block Russian naval activity in the Korea Strait.

Komdori 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you get a chance, look into the history of Vladivostok a little. Hopefully you'll see right away why the British wanted something over there. Keep in mind, at the time sea control was more important than now, and Britain had real interests in keeping dominant sea power in the Pacific. Komdori 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rain gauge

Have a look at what I put. I'm hoping that way it's up to the reader to decide who invented the first proper one. Sorry about the confusion before. There had been a major edit war over the Korean/Indian invention and I thought it was starting up again. There were no sources before to indicate that the Indian gauge was anything more than just ordinary bowls without any sort of standardisation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to get something solved quickly. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo image

Please see my comment at Image talk:Gogu-map.png. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded there, thanks for the comments. Komdori 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

true combat elite

do you play true combat elite?

I used to play it. Good friend100 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


block

when did I attack others. Good friend100 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly saying someone is "wimpy" and "pathetic" is a personal attack. Komdori 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

the Infobox

Nonetheless, I think using the map you created in the infobox is doing disservice to the integrity of the article by bringing modern poltiics to the main content. Removing "Korean" is enough of a compromise. Cydevil38 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You would rather have no one know where the kingdom was? Komdori 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Go see the map again. It does include modern constructs that people are familiar with. Cydevil38 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Most people don't know where the boundaries are. We need them overlayed, as most people have no clue how far up Korea goes. Komdori 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Goguryeo is a historic article on Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, not modern-day boundaries of Korea or China. The map also provides modern constructs that people are familiar with, and if people are curious about modern political boundaries, they can check with respective modern states or just scroll down to modern politics, where the map with modern political boundaries are appropriately shown. Cydevil38 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So having non-intrusive lines that would instantly help others know where the kingdom is would be unacceptable? Instead, you'd like a blob that is useless to the majority of readers--I am trying to assume good faith here, but you've broken 3RR by reverting to your versions 5 times today, and you seem to like a version that would not let people know exactly how much of the country was in China and how much was in Korea. Komdori 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Are modern political boundaries so improtant in understanding the history of this kingdom? I'm using a map based on history. You're using a map based on modern political boundaries. Now, you tell me which one is more appropriate for an article on a historic kingdom. And those are two separate pages. Reverts don't add up like that, not to mention they don't even add up to five reverts. Cydevil38 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I made a map based on the historical boundaries that shows the current boundaries as well to help people see where it is. The reverts are to the same page, infoboxes are on the same page. Komdori 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll propose a compromise shortly. And if those were actually on the same page, they would've been in the same reverts. Cydevil38 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to add dotted lines of modern political boundaries to the historic map, along with name of modern states(South Korea, North Korea, People's Republic of China, etc) in smaller font on those boundaries, but I don't have the necessary tools to do so at the moment. I'll make one later on. As for the map you created, I don't think its usage is appropriate, as political characterization is too prominent. Cydevil38 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to use an old map, the only way for it to be appropriate is to also include surrounding entities that are not of the three kingdoms of korea. Komdori 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no

You didn't bug me. :) If there is a question on an action I've taken, I'd always prefer that it be asked. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Northport0491.jpg

When I came across that image, I noticed the {{Non-free game screenshot}} fair use template. While that in and of itself doesn't always a good description of fair use, I looked at its usage within the article, and it seems to be well justified in my opinion. If you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to tag it as a disputed fair use and put it up for deletion again, and I won't dispute that. It was just my personal interpretation of the situation. As I delete hundreds of images a day, this one was fairly routine to me, so I don't have any special attachment to it. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Turtle Ship

The claim that iron cladding on the turtle ship is controversial is a personal opinion that is not referenced. Whoever made that initial edit fraudulently used references to portray claims of iron cladding as being controversial. However, the actual cited sources says nothing of the sort. Under WK:A personal opinions are inappropriate and the text of the article should accurately reflect what the referenced source actually states. The main article that is the source for all the Korean and Japanese quotations on turtle ship's iron cladding comes from Prof. Park/Pak/Bak's article in some SNU journal. If you read the article, you'll see that the article doesn't mention anything about a supposed "controversy" but rather assumes iron cladding on the turtle ship. Please check the references yourself if you're interested.melonbarmonster 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked over your compromise. I've already compromised by not inserting my personal opinion and commentary. I deleted the personal commentaries and opinions and have left the primary quotations(all of which are from Prof Bak's article) as is without commentary or opinion. Lactose and other trolls on the other hand are insisting on peppering the whole article about there being no evidence for iron cladding. Such personal opinions are violation of WP:A and WP:or. The referenced articles also mention NOTHING about any doubts on iron cladding. I'm going to leave it for now but am going to change it back unless someone gives some references about this supposed "controversy".melonbarmonster 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've left a final request for references regarding doubts or referenced "controversy" about iron cladding on the turtle boat. It's my hope that those who offer no references will not instigate another revert war. If you have the time and interest, I would appreciate your investigation and commentary on the matter.melonbarmonster 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Saw your comment. I'll propose sentences that need to be changed but for now I want to give some time before we go ahead with the edit process for people to come up with additional references and sources.melonbarmonster 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! We believe enough participants have signed up for us to begin mediation. However, if you have not yet signed up for the MediationWiki, please do so.

Those of you who have signed up can log in at the following URL using the username and password sent in your account creation email: http://www.southportbeekeepers.co.uk/medcom/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&returnto=Goguryeo:Noticeboard

Be sure to watchlist this page, if you have not done so already, and check it regularly: http://www.southportbeekeepers.co.uk/medcom/index.php/Goguryeo:Noticeboard

There are questions for you to answer here, and you should watchlist this as well: http://www.southportbeekeepers.co.uk/medcom/index.php/Goguryeo:Opening

Thanks!

Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant, 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rusk documents

Hi Komdori, sorry to revert you on the Rusk documents, but even your modified version of the claims about Korean independence is pretty far out there. I left a note on the talk page. --Reuben 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, I'm not reverting back on you, just read the response I left, we'll figure it out there. Komdori 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

No, I posted a reply to your reply afterward. You failed to answer that. I think I have a more accurate picture of the timeline.

I would have normally refrained from "accusing" you, however, I was already pissed at Jjok for not replying to my comments & I sure didn't want to let that happen again. (Wikimachine 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

It's not really correct.... This is not a chat service. You said I didn't respond to the comment you left after my change, but it was less than 10 minutes. Leave a good 24 hours (or more) before saying someone doesn't respond. Anyway, I understand how tensions run high, though, especially on an article like this, so no big deal.
--Cheers, Komdori 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, thanks for your kindness. By the way, does Komdori mean something? (Wikimachine 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Yes, it's what my wife calls me. Aren't you Korean?
--Cheers, Komdori 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori means "bear" or "teddy bear" in Korean, Wikimachine. Good friend100 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Wow. I never knew that. I left Korea when I was young. I'll make sure to remember that. That's real cute. (Wikimachine 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Heheh, you know, it's a lot harder to argue with you guys when I see some "human" side. Probably if I happened to know you in person we get along well. Some people are obvious jerks or have a very pointed agenda, but even though I know both of you (Wikimachine and Goodfriend) have disagreed (sometimes a lot) with me in the past, you are two of the good ones. And Goodfriend, I see you said you might leave Wikipedia soon. Even though it means your vote will sometimes cancel mine, I hope you stay. You have a lot to offer. Anyway, enough kind words for now, or we cannot argue with each other at all ;)
--Cheers, Komdori 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Every Wikipedian has their soft side. I'm only leaving Wikipedia because of school, not because I hate it or something. Good friend100 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Heheh I'm not so sure, some seem pretty hard all around. Anyway, don't be disheartened by Wikipedia in general. You mention that people chip away at the quality. This might be true, but then one editor comes along and can fix all of it and more. Two steps forward, one step back still means progress.
As for your school, it comes and goes in terms of workload. I hope you can contribute when the workload is light. And I noticed you had an issue with math, I used to tutor math for kids in cram school and later, too. So if you have a question on homework send an email. Just don't send me an email about something controversial and then no problem ;) To bring this back to Wikipedia, I just hate to see an editor who spends time to contribute go. Just keep checking in when you can.
--Cheerks, Komdori 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo

Japan did not administer Dokdo as a fact. Administeration is different from claim. --Kingj123 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See my response on your talk page. --Cheers, Komdori 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Japan's mission towards administeration is not internationally recognized. And, I hope you do not change my edit yet until I am fully convinced. --Kingj123 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, see your talk page for my response. --Cheers, Komdori 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to see the article please. Kingj123 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I gave the link to the article on your talk page. --Cheers, Komdori 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I really feel grateful for showing me the article, however, this explains little about the current administeration of these islets but rather Japanese and Korean disputed claims and the the support from Mr. Yun towards Japan. Kingj123 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. --Cheers, Komdori 20:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are the only Korean who does not have pro-Korean attitude towards Dokdo article. Unless you are Japanese (which I don't hope), I am feeling happy to have a Korean editor who focuses on both sides of the dispute. But sometimes, you lean too much towards Japanese-American sides, but I extremely apologize if I am wrong.

Anyways, you said that <<The United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island." Therefore, the U.S. does not take a side on who is the legitimate administrator.>> But, you again, linked the "claim" with "administration" together as if they are treated like as if they are the same but it is not. --Kingj123 20:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, when did you immigrate to USA? Please do not respond if you don't like to for privacy. --Kingj123 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


THE FACT: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH KOREA ADMINISTERED, BUT JAPAN AND KOREA BOTH CLAIMED.--Kingj123 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you believe you can administer a place without having a valid claim? It really doesn't matter, though, the administration link is supposed to be about how it is administered. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

'The problem is not which one is stronger in terms of power.
'Read the first paragraph of the article, I want everything on this article consistent.
'How is not the problem, who is the problem.
'You did not convince me yet that "Japan administered Dokdo." Bring me a quote that exactly says that "Japan administered Dokdo."--Kingj123 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The way you said above is exactly what Japanese says all the time. I think you are bit off from neutrality. I am not neutral either. But the thing is... that you are counter arguing all the words I say all the time which is bringing up some suspicions.

Anyways, South Korea forced an administeration because of the Sanfransusco Treaty. South Korean administeration is not supported by any country, but that is not the point of the argument. --Kingj123 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Being neutral is important... however being loyal towards your origin is also important. There is a difference between POV and loyalty. That is life. Good conversation Kodori. I want to stay in close contact with you though.

In terms of strict neutrality, I would use both "Claim" and "Administeration" because they are both important. However, the point you suggested is better than "Japan administered Dokdo." idea. Kingj123 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you are indeed Korean, although the suspicion is not cleared yet. Please excuse my actions. If you are indeed Korean, I am extremely sorry.

If you are able to talk to me in Korean, I will be convinced.

I never heard of any Korean wives saying pet names to their husbands. Kingj123 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingj123, don't get sucked into pointless discussion with Komdori. I'm pretty certain that this guy isn't Korean as he claims himself to be.melonbarmonster 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, fully agree with Melonbarmonster. Good friend100 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I do not understand why Japanese people do these uncivil and pointless things. I call this stupidity, childish, and very uneffective act. Kingj123 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am from Daegu. I don't know why everyone here has such bad faith. When someone comes along and tries to be neutral so that others won't have anything to complain, this is how they are treated. No wonder the Korean articles are in the state they are, everyone is pressured to stick to the propaganda rather than try at all to be academic. It seems you'd rather have "WikiRumour" than Wikipedia.
All I can really say is this level of emotion is indicative of the reasons why you want the article in question to stay at the non-neutral name. You don't care about Wikipedia policy or what is neutral, you just want to advertise the claim as far as it can go. --Cheers, Komdori 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI post

What's up? --Iamunknown 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre! It didn't warn me there was an edit conflict, and I'm sure I didn't delete the text. I'm sorry about that, if it was somehow my fault it was purely unintentional. Komdori 23:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a known bug in the software. I see it about once a week. It happens typically with the last section, when someone adds a new section using the "edit section" feature, and the edits are close to simultaneous. It only seems to happen on large, i.e. long pages with many sections. Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Whew, had me worried I was going bonkers. Komdori 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know ... the first time I unintentionally blew away someone else's post, I got yelled at ... but then I started to notice it was a pattern.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Onishi

The linguisitics professor's blog is considered self-published material that's unacceptable as citation material. The NYT articles that you're complaining I deleted were Norimitsu articles that Jjok is using to expound his personal opinions. That last sentence, "Most of his article are about Korea or accusation of Japan rather than current aspects of Japan" is just personal opinion and should be deleted.melonbarmonster 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Korean Assassins

This is a bogus category created by Japanese POV trolls. There is no sane reason to justify your reverting back this bogus category.melonbarmonster 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the following categories that are more well developed. Can you explain why you feel Koreans should be excluded?
Komdori 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Korean POV pushing

All your edits are anti-Korean and inflammatory POV pushing. Your edits are never substantial inclusions of published facts but made up of mostly reverts and POV edits. If you don't know the facts about issues, don't make edits. Additionally please stop interfering with my edits. Thanks.melonbarmonster 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remain civil. I explained the change to you on your talk page. While you are apparently assuming everyone is out to get you, the reality is that there are many other assassins by nationality as well. Komdori 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that reminder.melonbarmonster 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Anti-Korean POV Pushing

Please stop your disruptive editing practices. Engaging in edit wars, pushing Japanese POV, leaving agitating comments on my talk page and leaving bogus 3rr reports.melonbarmonster 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

When I make a 3RR report (which was legitimate), I am obligated to leave you a notice. Komdori 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Response regarding Good Faith

You've exhausted any good faith standard with your support of POV trolls and fraudulent reference citations and numerous anti-korean POV edits. You could foster good faith by stopping your attempts at pushing Japanese POV at maligning Korean independence activists as "assassins".melonbarmonster 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at Claus_Schenk_Graf_von_Stauffenberg, one of the Category:Failed assassins of Hitler. There is nothing necessarily wrong with being an assassin. Please see the other categories of assassins by nationality to what I directed you. Komdori 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with adding legitimate assassins in the Korean assassins list. But including 2 Korean independence heros exclusively in this category is obvious Japanese POV pushing. The term itself applied to Korean independence movement is a Japanese revisionist perspective that would only be appropriate if Korea was still a Japanese colony.melonbarmonster 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please add other Korean assassins to the list as well so that it will be as developed as the other nations' lists. Komdori 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

It is very strange to see such a passionate debate on Wikipedia where there is absolutely no interest from either North America or the Commonwealth. Normally there is some tangential interest if nothing else. I have been following the debate and for what it is worth I have put the argument forward for Liancourt Rocks, (I do not like the "Dokdo/Takeshima" solution for two reasons (a) which country comes first -- as much fun over that as keeping it to Dokdo! (b) slashes have a meaning in URLs which is I think the reason they are depreciated in Wikipedia names. But whatever name is chosen by a WP:RM request I think we should stick with that name. I think it is time to hold another WP:RM request but it should present all the options and and approval voting rules (Only a support option (no oppose option)). The we should be able to put it to bed for at six months ore more. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting Busy and Thanks

I'm getting a bit busy at the moment. Thanks for the smart comments on Dokdo. I might not be able to contribute much from now, but we getting somewhere with sticking to Wikipedia policy at least - although it's a hard slog! I can only suggest to concentrate on Naming policy only, because that's the rules of Wikipedia and that is the only thing that counts here. I think if we simply concentrate on that issue then things will be easier. That article about cyberspace is interesting but I think it's a red herring and sucks us into yet another discussion! I think it is worth bearing in mind that Senkaku is the standard English name, but if you look at the talk there some of the more knowledgeable editors have insisted that each article is taken on its own merits and one discussion should not refer to another article (except in simple cases like your excellent simple refutation of the / issue with that Greek Island).

You may find this resource helpful:

http://books.google.com/books?q=Liancourt+Rocks&btnG=Search+Books

It does indicate that Liancourt Rocks is used more than people might think. I think the approach that Dokdo and Takeshima are actually never used but simply reported by BBC etc. is quite a powerful argument for Liancourt Rocks that is at least used sometimes and on maps.

Cheers,

Macgruder 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed easy to get sucked into things easily that are off topic. I can't believe how many people signed onto the vote saying they were doing it because their side had legitimate ownership of the islands (for one side or the other, both sides had a few guilty parties, I think). I agree that the main issue should be what is used in English--and I believe that Liancourt Rocks wins on that front. Whether you look at an official document or an academic paper, they are going to use the name Liancourt if they are English speakers and not trying to push an agenda. Due to the prominance of the ownership controversy, both their local names are often reported.
I hope you aren't too busy to check in once in awhile. It will probably come down to a poll, and even though votes should have their reasoning taken into consideration, I'm sure a few reasonable voices will be needed to nudge the discourse back from all these tangents. If you're really too busy and want to take a break in general (sometimes it's a bit addictive to keep checking) let me know and I'll send you an email when the next step comes (if you do this, I recommend picking someone else, too, just in the off chance something strange happens and for whatever reason I am not around at that time). Komdori 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and you're dead on about killing the Senkaku discussion. Binding articles together like this causes a huge problem. If we bind articles, then we can only move them in pairs, which is not how it is supposed to work, and adds a big overhead. If you tie this article to the Senkaku page, they could tie the Senkaku page to this one, rooting both pages where they are for all time. This is one reason the past poll was poorly conducted. The wording implied there was some tie to that article, when in reality both need to be determined by the commonly used English names, which in this case happen to be Senkaku and Liancourt. Komdori 16:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You said addictive. Not at all :-) BTW, the google counts thing is ridiculous. For 2 reasons, it doesn't belong anyway. Take a look at the naming convention. It's only for situations like Switzerland where there are 2 names by a single authority. Also, the hits weren't restricted to English which is where the absurd 500,000 comes from. Also, policy only allows simple searches! Macgruder 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just left a comment about the local authority thing. I think it's pretty clear this isn't intended to be for when two different local authorities are advocating a single name, it's for when a single local authority advocates two. I agree the google thing is quite a stretch, the only real benefit I see of it being that people who come to vote in the RM down the road will see there was a huge discussion over Google results, and that it isn't simple (else they will try their own search and get confused by the results, non-English, and so on). --Cheers, Komdori 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I should be more respectful. You're an adult right? I'm really sorry. (Wikimachine 15:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

No, no, maybe I wasn't clear. I left a note thanking you, you've overall been great. Sometimes emotions run a little high, I get it, but overall everything has been more or less calm. --Cheers, Komdori 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In anyways, I'd really hate to offend you in any smallest way. You're always so careful in what you say & conclude any heated discussion with --Cheers. I wouldn't be able to do that. The benchpress thingy, somebody else added that. No, I can't bench press anything. Thank you so much for understanding. (Wikimachine 15:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for your kind words. About the signature, I realized that with just my name alone sometimes made me sound more "gruff" than I meant. My only fear is that it will come across as sarcastic, but so far I don't think it has, and I like the look of it. --Cheers, Komdori 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I left a reply at the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/LactoseTI. I hope you don't find it to be laziness. --Cheers, (Wikimachine 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
It's not lazy, thanks for the kind words again. If nothing else, this discussion I think has raised both of our respect for each other. --Cheers, Komdori 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kristina Albania

Hi I don't know if I can write here, but I replied to your note, in my talk page, and I don't know if you get a notice about it. KristinaAlbania 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have read and replied to what you wrote. --Cheers, Komdori 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Socks/One-timers

Thanks. I don't speak or read Korean, but from what I gather, our little debate here has gotten some attention, apparently. Is there an English translation available? I'd like to read it. Parsecboy 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And now we get the "pre-aged" accounts. Somebody was getting ready for this eventuality. Parsecboy 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I plan on reporting Davidpdx‎, sometime soon, as he has blatantly used socks, as I uncovered on the talk page. The rest, I'm not sure about, as they could be anyone. I don't think there's enough evidence for a check user for the rest of them by themselves, but we could attach them to the Davidpdx‎ case, and see what we get. Parsecboy 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to reply to the above comments by Parsecboy, he has left some nasty messages on my talk page accusing me of sockpuppetry,which isn't true. I've reported him to an admin for harrassment. I've been using Wikipedia for over two years and NEVER had a sockpuppet. I'm not sure why he went psycho on me, but my advice is to stay out of it. Davidpdx 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved my comment to your talk page Parsecboy. Good friend100 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Komdori

Hi, Komodori. My name's Juhyeon Song ( or 'Jay' as i pass by) and you probably guessed my heritage by the mere tone of my name. Well, I am a South Korean immigrant generation 1.5., a term commonly referred to those who immigrate in early to late teenage years to a foreign country. In this case, it’d be my immigration to U.S. in January 15th, 2003. It seems so long ago, although I’ve been here for only 4 years. Perhaps the cause of this faint remembrance can be attributed to drastic cultural shock and assimilation (Americanization) I’ve gone through. I’m sorry to bore you with my personal history, but I know you’ll cope with me just a bit more through this dull introduction, for in the end you’ll easily perceive my intention. Also, please excuse my four-year English, which I am insolently proud of, yet lack in almost all aspects of grammatical work.

Ever since I’ve left South Korea for the life of this ‘promised land’, I’ve always felt gratitude for my parents who boldly abandoned their high wage jobs for my education. I’ve come to love this nation so much since then; it was an idealistic country that embraced all kinds from all over the world regardless of issues and conflicts. Sure there are numerous malice to be talked about for centuries, yet nonetheless this was the country, the United States of America. Perhaps it was the inherent complex of having weak mother country. When American infantry division troops ran over two Korean girls with a tank few years back, I was very upset. Yet I couldn’t help my self bedazzled by the power which America had. The power to pardon those (pardon my language, for as much as I try to restrain myself it is quite impossible to salvage my soul in this matter) arrogant bastards just demonstrated the power of the strongest nation in the world. Maybe I was yearning for such mother country; I wouldn’t be able to deny it. However that doesn’t mean I’ve been totally americanized, although I remain politically active within American politics, severed ties with other Koreans due to unfitting milieu, and think chauvinistically for U.S.A. without so much thought. I still miss South Korea, or just plainly put, Hankuk. Back then it used to be just that. Hankuk. But it all changed ever since I left my mother country. I came to perceive the global formation in aloof distance. Korea is merely pushed around big countries. I do not like South Korea, I will not like South Korea. That was the unspoken chant I was droning on for last two years. But I finally got it. As much as I hate the situation South Korea is in, the filthy hypocrites who only seek for money to wipe their own ass, and damning truth of continuance of current state, I can not hate Korea. I can not hate Korea when my own friends jokingly make fun of Koreans. I can not hate Koreans when some red neck comedian cracks a racially degrading remark such as eating dogs. I just can not. Can you understand that? For all these years, how I died to have my relatively pale skin emulate to the texture of white man. For all those Americanization and arrogance induction. For all….everything I’ve finally acquired now. I can not. This is a tie that will not, can not be severed. It’s not some iron chain tethered either. It’s something…ethereal. Call me crazy, but it’s just impossible to do so. I get angry and rave about every time somebody makes a joke about Asians. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Chinese, Indian, or even Japanese. I’m always there before thinking (which I normally never act so) and already berating and glaring. I’ve got into numerous arguments concerning those topics just this year. Rare visit to the local Korean church ( because I feel comfortable going to white church with my friends, I normally don’t go to Korean church) does not help either. It actually encourages me on. Half the kids in the so called youth group lack the perception of reality, They are lost on the way, with no hopes but to pursue their moment of hedonistic pleasures even at the expense of public image and furthermore, the racial dignity.

You probably figured it out by now. Yes, I’ve read couple of articles’ comments you’ve posted. And it was quite disturbing how you sided (forgive me, but I am just a sophomore in high school in process of mindset-developing, as much as I identify myself Libertarian.) against fellow Korean. Again, I’m sorry if I am assuming from faulty data. But in my possibly biased/inherent chauvinistic qualities, I can not accept it. As much as pathetic Korean government is, and Korean people in general, you just can’t forsake them. It isn’t in your reach to decide it. All we can do is make the best out of it. The sex slaves, who are now euphemistically termed as ‘comfort women’ we can not forget. The taste of Japanese sergeant’s boot’s dirt we will not forget. The agony and pain our own grand parents and great grandparents have suffered will not be condoned. We will not forget. I will not forget.

I don’t mean to say that you should stop posting pro-japanese/ anti Korean materials. I don’t mean to launch anti-japanese campaigns or anything. I don’t mean to start planning out anything.

I just want to live in peace. I do not wish to see any more of this. I do not wish to see my fellow brothers and sisters quarrel against their own. It may seem ironic that I, Americanized beyond return-immigrant, am saying that, but that’s how it is. I feel pain. I am weeping. I am pathetically crying. I pray. I pray more. Then I give up. I look. See more. Weep again. Try to forget it all. Try to be an AMERICAN.

But what the hell am I, then?

What the hell am I suppose to do?

All I know is that I just can’t take it anymore. I just can’t. I’m going to slit my wrist if these things just recur again and again. I know Korea and Korean people seems hopeless. No, are hopeless.

But please, please, please, I beg you. If there still lies trickle of affiliation. Just a small drop of benevolence. Please think of those poor souls of hypocrites.

Please. Otherwise there's no hope to live.

--Idiosyncraticjay 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your immigration and your English (it's quite good). I don't hate South Korea, either, and many of the issues you mentioned are clearly important, though not so directly to the article at hand (Liancourt Rocks). At Wikipedia we strive for both neutrality and, in the case of naming, common usage. As much as you or I might like to blindly side with Korea on an issue, it's not in our best interest to do so. Doing so weakens our position, reputation as being reliable, and our ability to be recognized as neutral. I'm aware of the fact that it might seem "common sense" to you that it should be under a Korean name, but that's reflecting your point of view. By the tone of your post I cant tell you are very emotionally invested in these issues, but I'm not quite sure what exactly you would like me to do. I appreciate that it must have taken a significant amount of time to write that amount of an entry on my talk page, and I did read through it all. Let me know if there's something I can do. --Cheers, Komdori 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean, under the relatively justified perception amid modern society, that neutral stance between controversial issues is the right way? I am not an expert, nor am I a bit intellectual mister. But there's one thing I know. And that's the second hand accounts of the oppression that had been engraved within the bones of my grandparents. As much as I try to refrain my self from, as you put it, 'blindly side with Korea' , it is quite upsetting to choose this third party, out of the blue name of Liancourt. But that's just my opinion. However these 'adopting a neutral position methods' shouldn't be the archetype of all controversial issues. If you mean to place the outlook of matter before the content, then I'd be greatly upset. No matter how Western World looks at it, nor Japanese government looks at it, the damage is still there and it had planted deep roots of certain, possibly biased culture among denizens. So, tell me. By adopting these neutral stances are we going to be able to solve the problem, clarify the mistake within situation, and hopefully get along together? I apologize if this may offend you, but that seems much like escapist' route, afraid more of public sentiment of 'global' views of Western focal point rather than that of arbiter's. Are we to please others before clarifying the whole situation? Just like it happened/happening with so called 'Comfort women' (euphemistically put) and American tank running over two Korean girls? Yes, it's wise not to start up a whole global conflict with Korea against every other nation in the world. That'd be pretty stupid and unwise, posing as provincial bigot. But, but, but. that doesn't mean people should follow the majority opinion. I for one, can not accept Liamcourt Rocks in fear of 'public sentiment'. However rich and famous the constituents of that public may be. So tell me. Would this be a hopelessly biased stance of confounded immigrant kid, or would it be somewhat decent opinion? --Idiosyncraticjay 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I know Dokdo/Takeshima is important to you. It isn't important to most of the world. They will never encounter one name or another alone, they would encounter either the pair or the neutral term Liancourt Rocks used by the UN and US government alike as the official name for this place. Finding a good name for the encyclopedia article for the majority of English speakers has nothing to do with comfort women or girls being run over by tanks. We have to make sure not to allow such things affect our decisions here. There is Korean wikipedia available. There, the name can be the recognized one in Korea, just like in Japanese wikipedia the name is the Japanese recognized name. It's not my policy, it's the first foundational principle of wikipedia in general. I'm not quite sure what you are asking of me--do you expect me to act irrationally, in the face of all policies and conventions simply because of nationality? Is that the way to gain respect, by not following rules and childishly sticking to what I want to see regardless of whatever policies are in place? --Cheers, Komdori 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet I still fail to see where the line of 'childish sticking to an idea'solely based on the fact that it's chauvinistic' lies. If I do not at least try to over do things and take account in Pro-Korean way, soon there comes ridiculous Japanese-Imperialist or White supremacist who deems the acceptance of global opinions as 'submission' and starts speculating wildest idiocy. How do you deal with these? So far, I've figured out to just hold back and endure. But just as I was enraged upon reading particularly disturbing aspects of some comment, I sometimes blow up. I guess when tension runs high and dillema seems interminable, then such thing is bound to be of disvantage. In this case, dokdo. Have a nice Memorial Weekend. --76.204.151.194 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, in the English speaking world you are not going to encounter too many people using Liancourt Rocks for their White supremacist or Japanese-Imperialist gains. They simply don't know about this place. If they do, they'd have heard about it with either both names, like: Dokdo/Takeshima or with its English name Liancourt Rocks. The name here needs to reflect that. Perhaps you think it's too bad that the world doesn't recognize Korea's claim to the islands. But perhaps you are glad it doesn't formally recognize Japan's either. Using either name here (Takeshima or Dokdo) winds up going against naming policy and therefore really can't be considered. If you have any other questions/comments let me know. Enjoy your holiday, too (I actually will probably need to work, oh well). --Cheers, Komdori 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Okay. Thanks. --76.204.151.194 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note: South Korea used to be hopeless couple of centuries ago, but now, Korea is not hopeless at all... South Korean are happy and hopeful compared to other countries in the world, but like many other developed countries in the world, South Korea has a high quality of life, so many Koreans don't realize how fortunate we are now.

Many people (Koreans) take a painful history in the past as if it is happening now. Yes, China, Soviets, USA tossed us around a bit, but they can't now. USA indeed have a quite bit of power over South Korea now, like Japan... but Korean valuable culture, language, freedom, and identities are kept. Because of the some American Influences, it became easier for Koreans to compete in the world. Even North Koreans and South Koreans used to fight in the past, now are shaking hands and preparing for the unification! How can't this be hopeless? User:Kingj123 Kingj123 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Things about Dokdo:

  • There is a difference between loyalty and POV.
  • there is a difference between truth and POV.

Kingj123 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical?

  • Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo?
  • Is UN's way the only right way, to judge the the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets.
  • Is it right to just focus on international law for Dokdo Article?
  • And neutrally speaking, which country would gain free benifit?
  • Any proof of UN's immediate response to Korean sovereignity, any effort from UN to stop SK patrols?

User:Kingj123

Liancourt Rocks

Hello Komdori. I have reviewed my closure and decided to overturn and move to Liancourt Rocks. Thank you for your input. Best regards, Húsönd 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you

I'm glad someone else thinks this situation is a serious abuse of Wikipedia. Thank you for your report. I attempted to back you up. The fact that the so-called 'Korean side' should resort to such ridiculous and damaging behaviour is indeed unfortunate and doesn't help anyone. Mumun 無文 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

You cited one diff in which Melonbarmonster makes the new (presumably new) edit, and then one in which he reverts to it. If indeed he made the new edit earlier, and then reverted to it twice, it is your job to explain this and provide the second old version as necessary, not mine to go hunt it down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's tenuous at best. It looks like everyone involved there would benefit more from mediation or other forms of dispute resolution than blocks being placed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusations

Yes, I do mean you because of your involvement with Parceboy. It's clear you two are working together to harrass users. If you don't like that accusation, tough. Davidpdx 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't quite a strange concidence you happened to find my complaint. Your motives are questionable as are the actions of several others. It stinks of high heaven. You can stand there and claim you know nothing, but it's clear you and Parceboy are full of crap.
As to the suggestion that I should be civil, why don't you step back a minute. You weren't the one that was labled a sockpuppet. Tried, convicted and hung in the same day. You guys go what you wanted I guess. Davidpdx 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Response on your talk page. --Cheers, Komdori 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, you and Parceboy have done what you set out to do. Your a disgrace to Wikipedia. Davidpdx 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And what would that be? Unmask you as a puppetteer? --Cheers, Komdori 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the discussion on the talk page and removed the sockpuppet warning. I am going to file harrassment charges against you for the crap your pulling. You are continuing to further a lie by covering it up and you will pay for it. Davidpdx 02:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Do not make threats. Putting valid tags on your user page to aid investigation is not harassment. --Cheers, Komdori 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just surprised how those for Liancourt Rocks demoted votes for Dokdo in a so mean and sarcastic way. You even demoted me with what, less than 50 edits otuside of Dokdo? Does that mean I'm not established editor and cannot be counted? How come you even tried to exclude my vote? Did you check my other edits not relating Japan/Korea issues? It's so ridiculous to see the way you along with LactoseIT argues with Húsönd, demoting vote for Dokdo.

Listen man. Whatever you said, there was no consensus and it was your faulty one-sided argument that overturned the decision. You branded many valid editors sock puppets or not established ones. You'll know it better. Shame on you. Ginnre 04:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Response on your talkpage. --Cheers, Komdori 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I simply see this as no good faith, especially towards Davidpdx. I think you should apologize to him. Good friend100 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Komdori,

Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator.

It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations!

If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me!

Yours,
Reedy Boy 16:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know relevant WP policies

Hey Komdori, I have a question for you. I have just no idea so please let me know, based on WP policies under what circumstances you can delete any comment on your talk page. I think it's very useful if you can do so. You're arguments are often very hard to beat as your edits are based on numerous WP policies. I believe you will come up with relevant WP policies in this case, too. I don't think talk pages are private so I believe at least some of my comments have legitimate place on your talk page based on WP policies. I hope you're consistent on your talk page with other pages you're working so hard on. At least please be diligent to point WP policies justifying your act on this as you did on many articles recently. Cheers, Ginnre 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

America

Hey thanks for supporting my attempt to get America to redirect to the United States. Unfortunately it just closed, with no consensus found. I guess this is site is slowly turning into the "Please-The-World" Wikipedia as opposed to the English Langage one. BH (Talk) 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure where Wikipedia has been accused of US-centrism, but I'm relatively new here so I guess I'll find some examples eventually. I really didn't expect my RM to go through anyway, because changes like that generally fail. I was a little disappointed anyway, and just wish those opposed to the moved could've supported themselves with some citations of policy or stuff like that. BH (Talk) 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

When you archive, isn't it normal to have link to the archive? Please put a link to the archive. And why is my comment in the archive while another same date edit above (6/4) remains on your talk page? Ginnre 05:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot archives it; I'm not sure why it would take some comments and leave others from the same date if they were both inactive. In any case, I didn't see any such comments that were left behind. --Cheers, Komdori 11:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Move request

I'm going to step away from it because honestly, this is way too involved for what I have time for right now. I'd recommend finding another admin. I'm not sure if he's involved if anything right now, but I'd highly recommend User:Will Beback. He's excellent when it comes to POV issues. If you don't want to go with him, this has a link to admins. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Hello Komdori. I have reverted your archiving of Talk:Military history of Goguryeo. Sections are not to be archived so soon. Please allow at least a week before archiving a discussion. Especially if they're no longer active. And especially, when a proposal is closed by an admin, it is not to be archived and removed from the talk page so right away. Regards, Húsönd 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. I remember the Liancourt Rocks closure. I had a hard time reverting the whole archiving, as I wanted to overturn my decision in that particular proposal. Big mess that one. :-) Regards, Húsönd 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Science and Tech in Korea

Thanks for your contributions and edits, I have poor grammer. Jegal 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

stop removing my edits

I have sourced information, so stop removing my edits. Good friend100 23:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Periods in titles

Hi, thanks for the comment! I was following the Wikipedia Manual of Style, wherein U.S. has periods and UK does not. I know it looks funny to see them side-by-side, but I tend to follow the MoS whenever possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krychek (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 June 2007.

over the top, eh?

No problem, Komdori. Yikes! ㅋㅋ I think that, especially in regards to Korea articles, we should take a zero tolerance approach to disruptive behaviour and trolling as per wikipolicies and commonsense. It's simply scandalous how much productive editing time is lost to sheer buffoonery and utter disregard for decency in the editing of Korean-related articles. I guess its moot now, but I found this personal attack against you particularly vexing [2]. Let's avoid excessive contact with these trolls other than legitimate warnings on talk pages and suitable edit summaries. In the past trolls have only benefited from the tit-for-tat stuff that has gone down. This one especially seems susceptible to bean-stuffing. Chimo, Mumun 無文 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Information

Hello Komdori. How do you do? First of all, I inform you that this report was submitted by Bason0.[3] Thanks. --Nightshadow28 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Cheers, Komdori 21:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Aug 2007

you did unjustified delte from Liancourt Rocks page. if you continually delete it. i will report you as vandalism.[4] [5] Dutyterms 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response on your talk page. --Cheers, Komdori 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

You're one of the parties for this arbitration case that I'm filing. The link to the arbitration is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests. (Wikimachine 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

provocative

Is there a reason as to why I should not use the above word? was my understanding of the word, not correct? or are the Japanese govt and people not provoked by Korea's actions?

one last point, with no offence intended, as someone Korean, are you sure it would not be better for someone unbiased, to make such calls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, did you actually revert an admin's rv? (Wikimachine 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm sure it would excite you if I did, but to tell the truth, I don't base my edits on the person who makes them. However, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but in this case, no I didn't revert an admin's rv, I reverted someone else, and I was reverted by an admin...but anyway, thanks for caring.Sennen goroshi 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he was talking to me; I believe I did revert one. Admins are editors just like anyone else, and can make mistakes, too. --Cheers, Komdori 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
either way, I am trying hard to think of a nice and wikipedia suitable way of saying he his a stick in his ass. I can't think of a suitable way as yet.Sennen goroshi 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..

..for the reformatting on my talk page. I was just too lazy to do it myself, so thanks. As for that star I have no idea what it is about, so I just decided to ignore it. Phonemonkey 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Hi, I thought I was explaining the reasons. The article cited does not say that South Korea subsidizes the livelihoods in order to justify their claim. It's common for countries to build housing and infrastructure, even provide living subsidies through tax credits and such, in outlying areas, so the previous wording sounded very biased to me. But whatever you or I think, the accusatory tone was not founded in the cited source, so should be out, don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIYet (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to talk about this on the talk page for the article; certainly it's not an uncontroversial change, so it would be better to avoid edit warring. If you like, add a fact tag, I recall seeing something specific about habitation claims. There is a marked difference between attracting residents to an undisputed and habitable outlying area and paying someone to live on disputed uninhabitable rocks to satisfy some UN requirements. --Cheers, Komdori 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)