User talk:Wikimachine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2005 - August 2006
  2. August 2006 - August 2007

Contents

[edit] Namwon

Hi, thanks for showing some interest in captioning the photographs! :) As you can see from the WikiProject talk page, the response to my request has been... well, not really overwhelming, so I guess the images are going to be captionless for a little while longer (which is a shame, really).

As for my user name, it comes from a Japanese drama called Dragon Zakura (I like Korean dramas, too BTW). I'm not really interested in anime, although I did read a lot of manga when I was a teenager. And yeah, I'm Caucasian. --ざくら木 12:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :(

kingkong(jeijenkong) is pissing me off! Help!!!!! I'm about to suffer a nervous breakdown!!!! I swear I'll bite his kneecaps off and glue them to his face, if I ever get a chance to do so...I am so pisd! plz help. Odst 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

don't rv too much. just edit it off instead. Odst 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but word of advice, don't talk about these rv stuffs - you're making it as if we're doing more than just Wikipedia stuffs. I rv b/c it needs to be . (Wikimachine 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying, I got blocked once for reverting 3 times. And it's harder than you think to count 24 hours. Odst 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You live in New Jersey? stuffs is not a common word in Western United States. Odst 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  !

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is bestowed upon Wikimachine for his steadfast and dedicated effort in assisting Wikiproject Korea. 71.132.107.129 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  !!

How can you assume that I have an account? I might not have one...71.132.107.129 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge debate going on about Cydevil 38's creation of the new Hwando article. we need some more supporting voices to keep it from getting deleted. Odst 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on between me and some anonymous users, and I don't know what to do. they are giving me a headache. I asked nlu to prtect it, but there's no reaction at all. Odst 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

oops. I forgot to mention the article. It's Gaya Confederacy.Odst 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the jingbirok? It's a book by Yu seong-ryong, and after a very very hard time translating it, I found this.

Joseon invasion force

1st Army

  • 7,000 Konishi Yukinaga
  • 5,000 So Yoshitoshi
  • 3,000 Mazura Shigenobu
  • 1,000 Omura Yoshiaki
  • 700 Koto Sumiharu

2nd Army

  • 8,000 Kato Kiyomasa
  • 12,000
  • 800 Sakura nakasune Sakara? sakura? idk

3rd army

  • 6,000 Kuroda Nagamasa
  • 6,000 odomo yoshimune
  • 4th Army
  • 10,000 Shimazu Yoshihiro
  • 2,000 moori yoshinari
  • 1,000 takahashi kuro
  • 1,000 akisuki saburo
  • 1,000 ido suketaka

5th army

  • 5,000 hukushima masanori
  • 4,000 doda kazutaka
  • 7,200 hachizu iemasa
  • 3,000 josogabe motochiga
  • 5,500 ikomaji kamasa

I have yet to translate 6, 7, 8, and 9, and they don't have a detailed list of naval commanders. I had to first translate it into hangul, then to Japanese. this took me a whole day to compile, so put it to good use. You can cite Jingbirok as the source. I forgot where I got it, but it was a pdf downloaded from the web. after that, I'm going to look in on post-imjin Geobukseons. stay tuned! Odst 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if these are accurate b/c they are from Korean side only while the Japanese might have something different. You should try looking at Samuel Hawley's book or something instead- get it from library. (Wikimachine 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

I don't know. as far as I am aware, there aren't any conflicting details of information between Japanese and Korean records. I'll look in on taikoroku(annals of Hideyoshi)for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odst (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC) [[1]] I don't have to explain. Thought you might be interested. I'm ordering it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odst (talk • contribs) 02:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War edits

Hi. I agree with your latest edits on the Korean War, especially the part about removing the "Civil War" aspect (I've only seen it referred to as a "Civil War" in communist propaganda), but there are several other references to that effect left. I probably won't have much time to spend on Wikipedia this week, if you could handle the additional edits. Thanks. wbfergus 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] liancourt

The article is written overall unfair

but its not that offensive in my view. The only problem I have is that JPOV editors (or anti-Koreans) use WP:NPOV to sidestep neutrality and make the entire article suggest that Japan has a fair claim to it.

I add information that are unfavorable to the Japan side and they revert it. Thats not following neutrality. If one side has stronger claims and better reasons, then its fair to state them in the article. If the JPOV editors fail to acknowledge even that, we're gonna get nowhere. Good friend100 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Legal status of Hawaii Page

Aloha Wikimachine -- I could really use your help as a member of the CSB project to take a look at this page and give your mana'o (thoughts). I am currently in a bit of a struggle over a question of "undue weight" (it is true that Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawai'i, and those both knowledgeable in history and willing and able to speak out about it are a relatively small group, but I don't think the indigenous viewpoint being squashed is ok either). I am not asking for anyone to participate in the struggle itself, but there needs to be a broader perspective, so if you can take a look at it and give your thoughts (it's okay not to know anything about the subject; it might be better that way), it would be really appreciated! I appreciate honesty, even if you do not agree with me. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Hello Wikimachine. Thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce elections. I am now a coordinator. Please feel free to approach me if you need any help. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yea, thanks for your support! Politics rule 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi - I was just looking at your profile (I accidentially clicked the "edit" button instead of the "discussion" button - sorry) and I wanted to know if you had any tips on organizing my wikiprofile. Thanks. If you can't tell, I'm very new to using wikicode. Ecthelion83 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks. Ecthelion83 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm very very new: what's a 3RR violation? And how would I go about avoiding one? Ecthelion83 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks for the heads-up. Ecthelion83 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at it - what a disaster. It should be flagged and probably pared down because it is not neutral (well, in the fact that the two opposing sides haven't reached a conclusion, it is, but it's a pretty bitter argument). I was only making some minor spelling and grammatical changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecthelion83 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take care of it, I think a decent approach would be to (briefly) discuss the historical issues (as well as the ambiguity thereof) and then approach the modern context and justifications in favor of one side or the other's case (all evidence points in favor of Korea, actually): a useful site I've found might help - http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/index.html). The website I just noted has many pages and copious evidence - your work is pretty much done for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecthelion83 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix

Thanks for your fix on my talk page. (Wikimachine 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Welcome. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guknae Seong

I need a second opinion on this. I added the {{Koreanname Chinesename}}infobox to this article, but Jiejunkong keeps reverting to the {{Chinese}} template, insisting that the article uses alphabetical order. Now I don't know much about the history or any naming conflicts, but it seems to me that if the article gives preference to the Korean name, then so too should the infobox. I dunno; you've dealt with this guy before, and I've no doubt you know more about the subject and the issues surrounding it - what do you think? The last I want to do is go to war over a sodding infobox. Cheers! PC78 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] regarding users

I brought the issue up a while ago how it seems we have few active contributers, with school starting I have little time and I have been doing alot of studying and plan to keep on working on science and tech article, I don't care much for disputes because it detracts from Wikipedia and its nothing but a cheap way for ultra-nationalists and insecure losers to rant and take it out on people behind the safety of the computer screen, at least that's how I see it. If there's any new disputes coming up, inform me via Wikiproject Korea talk page not my personal profile, I've lost interest in goguryeo,East Sea/Sea of Japan, Dokdo etc but if something REALLY important is happening, to inform me thanks in advance. Jegal 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] personal attacks

please don't make them. you are making veiled insults and personal attacks, with your 'racist dude' comments, I find that to be highly offensive, please stop.Sennen goroshi 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comedy on my user page, it's nice that you read a few comments regarding a topic you know zero about, and you came to a totally incorrect conclusion. But it's OK, I'm starting to understand you quite well, you have certain very strong pro-Korean opinions, and if someone does not agree with you, they are obviously a racist. The same as if I made a comment regarding human rights (or the lack of them) in certain places, people will assume I'm not showing respect for their culture. The only trouble is that I'm a humanist, I'm not pro/anti any nation apart from my own - and I don't edit pages with controversy relating to my own nation, because of my POV. Don't worry about it, keep that chip on your shoulder, keep playing the race card when anyone doesn't have the same opinions as you, it's OK, because there are many more small minder persons like yourself, who do the same on a daily basis. I'm not editing wikipedia in order to make friends, neither am I begging to become an admin, I just do it because I feel the urge. have a nice day, and understand that I dont hold grudges and I wont take any of this personally.Sennen goroshi 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ed Poor barnstar

The Ed Poor barnstar
This barnstar is bestowed upon Wikimachine for his enormous efforts to affront his opponents in debates. They are awfully effective to obstruct Wikipedians' arguments. Neoearth 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WPMILHIST Elections

Thank you for your support. It was much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Dear Wikimachine, thank you for this--I appreciate your kind thought. Even though I'm surely one of the only top-50 editors by edit count that is not an admin, but I don't believe I want the additional responsibilities, however, and also don't want to lose my ability to speak out about things I believe are wrong (such as rampant deletion of well-sourced and encyclopedic articles, or the addition of the "flagged-revisions" proposal) without appearing entirely impartial. I hope this makes sense. Badagnani 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Visviva? He is one of the best editors we have. Badagnani 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read your RFA comment about me and am very appreciative. I've been working here for a long time and one doesn't often get such thoughtful, positive comments--once every few months if that. Badagnani 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello Wikimachine. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 03:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks very much for your support in my successful RFA. Let me know if I can help you out with anything. As for the Liancourt Rocks dispute, I'll have to wait to see what happens with arbitration. Cheers!!! Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

My RFA
¡Hola! thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, no opposes, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban Ki-moon

Hi Wikimachine, thanks for your (weak) support of Ban Ki-moon which just passed its featured article candidacy. Although the article passed, I want you to know that I still consider it a work in progress, so if you ever have any thoughts on areas that the article is weak, please let me know. I'll have an eye on talk:Ban Ki-moon so if you ever have any issues you'd like to raise, don't hesitate! (And of course, this is a wiki, if you find sources on something I missed, don't hesitate to add them yourself!) Cheers, and thanks again for reviewing the article. --JayHenry 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:KO and the strange IP adding me...

No, I didn't join that wikiproject. Thank you for catching it. I don't know anything at all about Korea! =David(talk)(contribs) 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks again

Please do NOT make personal attacks against me.

"really stupid person" [2] refers to me, as I was the person making those changes.

"He was a racist dude, read the talk page, he tried to call someone a murderer," to call me a racist is offensive - not only offensive, but a little confusing, are you trying to say that I am a racist, just because I consider a particular political assassination to be unjustified? I think you should choose your words, a little more carefully because 1. wikipedia has policies regarding personal attacks (in the end you will be banned, just like goodfriend) and 2. the words you use, do not apply to the situation. Don't play the race card with everyone who has a different opinion to yours. It's nothing to do with race, I just dont think that it is NPOV to use terms that imply he was justified in killing someone.Sennen goroshi 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your comment on Talk:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence

In response to your third point: using your analogy - if somebody (i.e Opp2) suggests orangish red and gives a valid reason, whereas your counterargument boils down to "I can't give in because my conscience tells me that it's simply wrong", then can you blame me for stating that you haven't presented a valid counterargument? Which is exactly what happened. I urge you to look again at the first post I made on the Liancourt talk page. Phonemonkey 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to your second point: I still do not understand your accusations that we were "feigning consensus".

  • Talking about that discussion specifically, what could we have done better to arrive at what you would have accepted as a true consensus?
  • If your fellow participants were not your supposed arch-enemies but instead they were several users who you have never seen before, and the discussion was identical, would you have accepted it as a consensus?

Phonemonkey 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. But surely the validity of a consensus shouldn't depend on who participated in the discussion, but rather on the content of the discussion? Phonemonkey 09:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. But looking at the recent discussion on the Liancourt Rocks talk page, it seems that you are the main holder of this "us" vs "them" ideology (if the other participants in the discussion are also working on this principle, they have hidden it well.) As I explained in the arbitration statement, I think this is the primary obstacle in constructive debate. If you are not happy with the "us" vs "them" thing, what do you think should be done to discard it? Also, back to the earlier question - what could the participants of that discussion have done better for you to accept the outcome as consensus? Phonemonkey 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I am baffled as to why you find the word "exactly" so offensive. But anyway, I'll repeat the questions (again).
  1. What do you think should be done for you to discard the "us" vs "them" thing?
  2. What could the participants of that discussion have done better for you to accept the outcome as consensus? Phonemonkey 16:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. In response to your answer:

  • As for me - that discussion was my first point of entry into this topic. Do I not count as an "outside editor"?
  • As for Komdori - Neither Komdori nor I ever agreed with Opp2's initial suggestion to replace all relevant terms in the article with the word "occupy" - Reuben suggested an initial compromise [3] to which Komdori agreed.[4] Komdori further suggests concentrating only on the opening centence and leaving the rest of the article for a later date.[5]. In addition he rejects my suggestion of "military presence", suggesting "physical presence" instead.[6]. In the meantime even you yourself agree that you like the term "occupy" for the intro.[7] We were actually unanimous at one point.

The reason why I say this is to try to show you that you were not facing a concrete wall in that discussion. There was no "us"" and "them". Phonemonkey 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "you still failed to object to obvious POV in Opp2 & Komdori's proposals" - Incorrect. I voiced my initial concern with OPp2's initial proposal in my first post [8] which were ignored by all parties, so I did not follow it up. As for Komdori's proposal I didn't detect any POV - reason below.
  • You believe that in Komdori's proposal, (quote) "the arrangement of the words clearly emphasized the illegitimacy of S. Korea's control over Liancourt Rocks in that (S. Korea claimed Liancourt Rocks, and then controlled it)". I didn't detect POV in use of the phrase "claim by S Korea" because it is
  • If you still believe that "claimed by both Japan and S Korea" is JPOV, we're never going to agree - how do you feel about doing an RfC on this? If you prefer, I'm happy to do it here, or on my talk page, out of the chaos that is the Liancourt talk page. (This is on the understanding that whatever comments come back on our user talk pages, they are only for the sake of this discussion and do not constitute "consensus" which can be applied on the main article - this has to be on the article talk page). Let me know if you are before posting an RfC, so that we can agree on the wording. Phonemonkey 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is biased because JPOV editors are simply using NPOV as an excuse to reduce Korea to a mere "claim" when more than half of the world knows its Korean and that Japan can't do much but sweat about it. Korea occupies and controls it. That is not POV because its a fact. Yet, some editors like Lactose or Opp think thats POV and have to change it to something supposedly NPOV, when it really isn't. Thats the sad thing about the argument. The admins cannot see how biased Lactose or Opp is because they are screened by NPOV, which everyone knows as the god of rules here on wikipedia. Good friend100 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, how do you feel about switching from "posting replies on each others talk pages" to "discussing on one page only", for the sake of simplicity? Phonemonkey 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Let's talk on my talk page.
  • Of your 2 sources, only the columbia phrases it as "claimed claimed controlled" & furthermore it doesn't matter if you present a hundred sources showing that b/c I can also find a hundred more. To somehow indicate w/ only 2 sources that the rest of the world believes that neither side has clear ownership over the other is orginal research (i.e. naka dot org,Fox,ABC,Washington Post,another Washington Post etc.)
  • The link is now expired, there was a Korean newspaper article stating that Japanese objective in the dispute is to not to win over the island but only to affirm disputed status (in archives). To show that the island is affirmed to be disputed is JPOV. We only show that Japan protests the S. Korean control.
  • If you're a debater, you should know that a reason why to do something does not make that something exclusive (better than other options) b/c other options also have reasons why they are good too. I'll concede that Opp2's proposal is not too bad, but let me ask you why I should choose it over my version. (Wikimachine 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Also, Reuben's "compromise" was not a compromise & was completely unrelated to the disputed content ("claimed claimed controlled", or replace "controlled" w/ physical presence but nobody cares about that). I re-read & summarized the entire dispute on the intro @ arbitration & I know you didn't make the appropriate moves that I'd expect from a truly neutral editor. (Wikimachine 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Blocked

Wikimachine, your latest edit to Talk:Liancourt Rocks was the last straw ([9]). As per my reply here ([10]), I'm now blocking you for blatantly disruptive uncooperative behaviour. Block duration is 48 hours. I really really recommend you re-think your whole attitude when you come back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The admin is mistakened about the implications in my comment, which was not aimed to disrupt cooperation but to complain about the other party's uncooperative stance supported by "faking cooperation". I specifically made a complaint about this in the request for aribtration, which was aimed at the uncooperative & arrogant stance of the other side. At best, my comment is uncivil, but it is purposeful & constructive & relevant to the arbitration."

Decline reason: "First, it's a valid civility block: you were accusing other people of bad faith and disingenuity in a very bald-faced way, both in that comment and in your unblock request. Second, Fut.Perf. imposed those extra rules on the talk page, you explicitly agreed with them, and then you made the comment in which you make it clear you don't see the need to cooperate with the other editors. Mangojuicetalk 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

You wouldn't understand unless you actually read everything, I did not say that I don't see need to cooperate with other editors - that is the very thing that I was hoping the arbitration would fix. I was simply telling them to stop faking their attitude. Imagine that they've never agreed on anything on this disputed article for the last 1 & 1/2 yrs. Then, they say, "instead, why don't you suggest what can be done to improve the article?" as if I was the uncooperative one & I need reform & as if they were ever open to suggestions of mine. Do you think that I would not be pissed by that, when they were the uncooperative ones & at the end of the day all you get from them are those civil remarks? (Wikimachine 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Also, if this was a civility block, then my incivility is not enough to get me a block, & furthermore I was just stating the truth about the situation. I understood the block to have derived from the ROGUE policies that Future Perfect set up at the talk page where failure to cooperate --> block (something like that). (Wikimachine 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, stay away from that Dokdo article for a while and help me with this brand new article (when you are unblocked of course). Kingj123 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Wikimachine. We're approaching this the wrong way, thats why we're getting blocked. It seems to the administrators that Lactose and Komdori are fine editors;they certainly are not in terms of bias and attitude. But they don't go around doing things against Wikipedia policies to get themselves in trouble. Meh, its only 48 hours. Good friend100 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thx. I don't think I am bothered by this block. I think that it'd be best for you to stay out of the disputes & arbitration until I get back in. Thx. (Wikimachine 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
Test. (Wikimachine 12:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you.

If you feel WP:BLP is involved, please take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, the AIV is for blatant vandalism. --wL<speak·check> 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Korean Terrorists

Personally, I'm not thrilled about the category, and I can see the POV problems with two of the persons listed within, but the statement "There was never such a thing as a Korean terrorist" is patently false; please refer to Kim Hyon Hui. dfg 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked both LactoseTI and you for edit-warring on An Jung-geun and Yoon Bong-Gil. You clearly broke 3RR on both; Lactose I think stayed just below it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, can you please stop edit warring? The administrators etched a very strict rule at Liancourt (and it seems to apply in all Korea/Japan related articles). Theres no outcome but getting blocked. Its clear that "Korean terrorists" will not stay up there, all you need to do is discuss and thats it. Good friend100 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Woops. I didn't realize that my 24-hour limit was not up. (Wikimachine 12:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit]  !

I have good reason to believe that Oyo321 is hiding his identity in some conversations. Please refer to the Comfort Women talk page. See what you can do to dissuade him from such malicious acts fueled by stark Nationalism.

Sorry I can't help out much often anymore. My computer is broken again... so I'm using some1 elses. Odst 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is an edit dispute.

According to the vandalism policy, if the other person seriously believes the persons to be terrorists, then it's considered "unintentional misinformation". It is not vandalism. However, there's nothing cited, so you can remove categories or anything else you doubt under verifibility. If people are reverting, your edits then request comment and do the dispute resolution process correctly. --wL<speak·check> 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wg=cuisine

Fraid I don't know much about Korean cuisine, and I've got my hands full with a load of other stuff in any case, I just thought it was quite cool that you guys had a dedicated cuisine group. At the moment the Food Project are trying to kill the 'big' stubs like Herb and Asian cuisine, so individual dishes are a long way off the radar just yet.... :-) On the other hand, they're they sort of thing that are probably easier for a national Project to tackle than the central Food project, after all we are unlikely to be eating them every day.... FlagSteward 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppet

get real wikimachine, of course I'm not a sock puppet or a sock puppet master. Sennen goroshi 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal proof

Hi Wikimachine, I don't mean to say this in a nasty way, or to accuse you of anything - but I was a little concerned to see that you were using Vandal Proof, I'm not sure with your history of blocks, that you are the most suitable person to be using Vandan Proof. You may read my statement and disregard it, or if you prefer, feel free to give me your opinion on my/your talk page. thanks.Sennen goroshi 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an apology

I was wondering when you were going to apologise to me (and others) for your claims (without proof) of sockpuppetry/mastery? The accusation offended me, and I was ashamed and defamed to find a sockpuppet template on my user page, please do the right thing and apologise for making a mistake that offended and defamed a few people, thanks Sennen goroshi 14:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your vote @ Liancourt Rocks to ban me

It's worth noting that, in the FoF regarding you, only a few of the selected diffs are from the Liancourt Rocks matter; a great deal of the evidence points to you pushing a "Japanese versus Korean" or "Chinese versus Korean" view elsewhere.

The alternative, as far as I'm concerned, would have been to ban you from all pages related to East Asia; but, given your editing interests, that would be a ban from the project in all but name. Kirill 00:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. After nonsense like this, you're simply not going to convince me. Kirill 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Per this case, please provide a rationale for a CU case or the case will most likely be declined. Miranda 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Wikimachine/Arbitration_Evidence

You are correct in that one of the diffs points to an edit by another user. My apologies; I have removed it from the finding.

As for the rest: no, "edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others" are not "allowed at certain circumstances". No, you cannot "make those accusations". And so on and so forth. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you can ignore behavioral policies merely because you happen to be correct on some matter of fact. That is not the case; if you cannot interact appropriately with other editors, it matters not one bit how good your facts are. Kirill 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks closed

The above arbitration case has closed. You are banned from Wikipedia for one year, and I have instituted a block to enforce this ban. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :'-(

WikiProject Korea and WikiProject Aircraft will be empty without you. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] see you

I guess I will have the pleasure of reading your wonderful edits in about 12 months time. see youuuuuuuuu.Sennen goroshi 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Industrial Design Excellence Awards 2005.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Industrial Design Excellence Awards 2005.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ARX-7 Arbalest

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article ARX-7 Arbalest, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of ARX-7 Arbalest. « ₣M₣ » 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Commercial use of Image:Millenium Falcon.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Millenium Falcon.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Millenium Falcon.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[11][12]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Millenium Falcon.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block re-set

As per this AE report, it has been found that you have repeatedly evaded your ban, through edits from 69.245.41.113 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 69.180.210.99 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 69.180.193.52 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and others. Your block is therefore re-set to run for another 12 months, from today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Come join Citizendium

You don't need a degree to edit. But, people with ph.D. have the final say in the content matter. That means there's no sock puppetry because consensus doesn't matter. We have 0 case of vandalism. You only write, not waste time on anything else. (Wikimachine (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC))