User talk:4.23.83.100

Hello 4.23.83.100! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Wikimachine 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Editing

Your edits to multiple Japanese- and Korean-related articles, while some may be factually accurate, are certainly from an anti-Japan point of view, and Wikipedia strives for neutrality. They have been reverted several times in several articles; please justify your edits in the associated talk pages. Thank you. --Golbez 07:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing for one hour to stop this pointless string of reverts between you and Golbez. When the block expires, please discuss your changes on the article talk pages - continually making these biased edits again and again without discussion achieves nothing. —Stormie 09:58, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just tried to reply to your email, but got a bounce, "This account has been disabled or discontinued". Anyway, here's what I said:

If you look at the history of those articles, you will see a user named Golbez pleading with you to discuss those changes rather than making them again and again. I have unblocked you (sorry to do that, but it seemed the best way to get your attention) - I suggest you go to User talk:Golbez and discuss it with him.

Cheers. —Stormie 10:44, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Please, go to User talk:Golbez and discuss the matter with him. —Stormie 12:29, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

After sleeping on the matter, I want to make a few statements.

1. I apologize for some of the comments.
2. I apologize for reverting without examining some of your edits; however, many of these reverts were justified. Some were not, however, and that is what I apologize for.
3. I apologize to all for breaking the three-revert rule.
4. I hope I haven't totally discouraged you. I should know better than to be reading my watchlist at 5am after a rough day.

Anyway, to all, I apologize. :/ --Golbez 20:19, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Biased edits to "South Korea" and "Contemporary culture of South Korea"

You have added a number of biased entries to a number of Korea-related articles which not only fail to reflect a neutral point of view, but which also include grammatical and spelling errors. Please discuss your edits on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. Thank you. --Ce garcon 10:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well the original article on comtemporary South Korean culture did not make since. It stated that until 1998 Japanese culture was banned from S. Korea, but in the same paragraph it stated that Japanese pop culture had a huge influence in S. Korea. I was trying to fix that obivious error. If anything you could say some illegal Japanese culture made its way in S. Korea and that the Western culture had a huge influcence in both Japan and S. Korea making certain things to appear similar, but to say one culture was banned then to say it had a huge cultural influence is in error. Obiviously who ever wrote that was not neutral and was a Japanese POV violator. --4.23.83.100 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Hi. I saw the changes you made to Tsushima Islands. I don't know much (read: anything) about the Island(s) or their/its history, but as one who spent hours copyediting the article, I would like to ask you to please have some respect for English grammar in your edits! ;) Perhaps due to highlighting more than you meant to cut out, or a bit of carelessness that plagues us all now and again, but you were reverted earlier and made the same changes. Some examples:

"large numbers of Korean were kidnapped" - you took out "laborers" there, which is what made the sentence make sense. :) Plus the use of the word "kidnapped" might ruffle some feathers regarding NPOV. But then, I now nothing about this topic, so I'll let others handle that.

"the Masan city of Korea declared 19 June as "Daema-do day" on 18 March 2005, claiming Tsushima to be part of South Gyeongsang province in South Korea, but this was told to use calm by the Korean government." - Well... "this was told to use calm" simply makes little to no sense. Could you clarify that?

Thanks,--User:Jenmoa 9 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but they weren't laborers who went there. They were forced to go there as kidnapped slaves. Please help fix the grammar. Thanks --4.23.83.100 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Korea

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Subtle changes like yours are still noticable, and are detrimental to Wikipedia. Please stop immediately. Roy Al Blue 14:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome, and sorry for your not being welcomed in the past!Benon 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on JAPAN

Please read 3RR. Do not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. This includes edits that have the effect of undoing other people's work, such as your four reverts in the last 24 hours at JAPAN. If you continue, you will be reported and blocked. Thank you.--Questionfromjapan 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV edits on Korea

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Korea. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All my edits have had references with them. If you do not like what a the references imply I don't know what to tell you. I have also noticed you deleteing statements with 3 to 4 references on them in the Japan article. Why is that. Next time please discuss why you are deleteing multiple references and the statements that come from the references. --4.23.83.100 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

POV edits on Korea 2

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [This] and [this] are inappropriate edits. Please playing games with the naming. —LactoseTI^T 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the first section, it wasn't a commentary or personal analysis. It was a link that connected East sea to the naming dispute between Korea and Japan. If you don't make that link people might question the parenthesis in East Sea and just delete it. Which has happened multiple times. I've even once stated please see naming dispute and presented the link but someone deleted that also, so I made it simple by linking to the name East Sea. If some one clicks on East Sea they will see the reason for that name. Also, on the second part, it wasn't a commentary or personal analysis either. I only took out the Scorched earth campaign/policy statement which was in error and had no references. The article and references in that article state that it happened once as a civilian uprising not as a policy or campaign. I just wanted the paragraph to match the article, instead of having weasel statements and Japanese POV. --4.23.83.100 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was in reference to the nameing issues. You should not rename links to ones that will require redirects (such as changing Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea to Imjin War. You also should not keep pushing the East Sea links. Thanks. —LactoseTI^T 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Imjin waeran

Can you explain or justify this edit, adding and removing information seemingly to put Korea into a more favourable light? Any sources?

Please use PREVIEW in the future. Wikipeditor 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

POV edits on Korea 3

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Many, many POV edits between the last warning and now have been ignored. [[1]] was just too over the top to overlook. Please stop, or you will be blocked. —LactoseTI^T 12:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the edits of his as being POV.

" for the purposes of Japan's exploitative needs " was perfectly what it was.

Well, we need to let the facts speak for themselves. So, if this user wants to say that Japanese occupation was exploitative, he probably needs to provide examples in the article.

(Wikimachine 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

This user cannot be blocked from Wikipedia for NPOV issues. See [2]. NPOV violations must be reached to a consensus instead. [3]

(Wikimachine 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

I didn't make up the template. The "exploitative" insertions are just one example amongst many; they include edits that border on misinformation (sometimes going over the edge). If a user cannot be blocked for any NPOV violation, then why does the template even exist? —LactoseTI^T 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me the link to the template? And show me where in the official guidelines of Wikipedia blocking for being POV is mentioned. To me, Komdori is being POV, and we ought to have a discussion in talk:Korea first. (Wikimachine 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you wish to make neutral and unbiased contributions, feel free to do so after the block expires. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}

Unblock me please

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the 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 review while you are blocked.

4.23.83.100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Vandalism? I feel Nihonjoe may be of Japanese heritage or is somehow associated with the Japanese and is calling me a vandal to prevent me from editing. I know that the origin of the Japanese people, in addition to the origin of the yayoi and Japanese aggression in East Asia where more than 20 million people died is a touchy subject matter for the Japanese. I feel that building roads and bridges for the purposes of extracting mineral and deforestation of land, then taking them to Japan to enrich Japan are considered exploitation. The use of slave labor in my definition is considered exploitation. If Nihonjoe feels this is a point of view please provide me the information were Japan did not use Korean slave labor and they did not extract minerals. Please provide me information about Mitsubishi and Mitsumi not using Korean slaves. I do not feel I have vandalized. I even try to fix syntax errors when I notice them. Please show me what I have vandalized.

Decline reason:

Your block log reads "Engaging in a POV edit war", so Nihonjoe used the wrong template on your talk page (I've now corrected it). Your history of edits however, are bordering on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and so far you haven't at least posted once to a talk page in an effort to reach a consensus with your fellow editors. When your block expires and you've cooled down, please trying harder to find the middle ground in controversies and keep Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in mind. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've been accused of being Japanese as well as Korean, and I'm neither. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

A suggestion

I was just thinking--you might have better luck with the change you want to make if you try to discuss it before you actually change the page. I think it's pretty clear that others are not very agreeable to it at this point, and if you just keep putting it in anyway, I think you are losing ground. Just a suggestion. Komdori 15:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He has already discussed here. (Wikimachine 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm aware he discussed. At the same time he re-introduced it--my suggestion is that he refrain from pushing it until the discussion can be completed. Komdori 17:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please create an account

Thank for discussing your proposed changes with your fellow editors before making them. It's a very encouraging sign that you're on your way to becoming a Wikipedian. I would like to take this moment to recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.) Should your IP address change, you will lose your entire editing history and this talk page as well.

Also, In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --  Netsnipe  ►  16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Division of Korea

I consider your edits here to be problematic. The Chosun Ilbo editorial is cited in an NPOV way. Several of your phrasings have an anti-Japanese, POV slant, such as "fellow Koreans exploiting each other" and "collaborators". Your rephrasing of the land division is ungrammatical. Please either show convincing reason to let these edits stand or stop making them.--ThreeAnswers 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Chosen Ilbo editorial can not be used as a reference, it is an editorial. It is the POV opinion of that writer. If you want we can state under Japanese occupation 6 to 7 million Koreans died over a period of 35 years and under Rhee 30,000 to 100,000 died over a 5 year period. But you can't write the opinion comparison of two different time periods. Please think of a better solution if you do not like my suggestion. Thanks

Japanese War Crimes article

Another anonymous editor made a very POV edit to this article suspiciously similar to your recent edits to this article. I had warned him/her on their talk page not to make such obviously POV edits, but then you went and repeated it. I've deleted the material. If you can learn how to make neutral edits, then you can assist in editing articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise, you'll be reported to the proper forums to deal with consistently disruptive editors. If you need a forum for strong pro-Korean, anti-Japan diatribes, please consider starting your own website instead of wasting other editor's time on Wikipedia. Cla68 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what was wrong with the testimony edit of the nurse who stated she helped cover up bodies in West Tokyo. It had references and quotes by the people who investigated that issue. The nurses name is Toyo Iishi. If we don't give specifics in that article section people tend to delete it. Then later as time goes on references will get lost or forgotten, then people tend to state that the information is not true. I will try to re-edit it without the qoutes by the investigator which could be seen as POV, I believe they stated "legacy of Japans rampage" or something. But I think the name of the individual who testified needs to be included, otherwise the article which is sensitive to begin with is always being changed with people asking for proof. It reminds me of the holocaust section where some people keep saying it never happened. Anyways I'll add the name of the nurse, but I won't put in the quotes. Please check it out and see if you have problems with it and let me know, thanks.

That section in the article is now much better. Cla68 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching your talk page so that if there's any abuse from the editors in vindicating you with POVness I can step up. I think that you ought to make an account or something. And, where could I find this "Japanese War Crimes" article? (Wikimachine 16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Edits to Korea, etc.

I think you could be a great contributor to Wikipedia and help write some great articles. Your edits are addressing a lot of valid points, and I especially appreciate your citing sources for edits. Right now, though, a lot of your edits are being reverted, which unfortunately means that the articles will not be improved. I think you can do a few things to help avoid revert wars, and to ease interactions with administrators and other editors. First, if your edits get reverted, don't just submit them again. Instead, go to the article's talk page, or the user's talk page, and try to work out a consensus. Second, take it slow. If you make a lot of changes to an article at once, or in rapid succession, they may all get reverted and restored together, even though only a few parts are actually controversial. This can create two competing versions of the article, i.e. an edit war. Instead, once you see there's some dispute, try to separate the uncontroversial parts (which can go in right away) from the controversial parts (which need some more discusion). And finally, stay firm on facts, but be open to changing your wording or presentation. It's often possible to build consensus just by finding the right way to phrase something, and the result is a stronger article. I hope you won't be discouraged, and that you'll stick around and work with the other editors on improving the encyclopedia. --Reuben 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not very familiar with the articles you wrote about, so I can't really judge which versions are more factually accurate. I do have a few thoughts about the POV issues and writing style. The differences between your versions and others are not so much in the facts they present as in analysis: for example, in one case you added a note about the difficulty of reading ancient Chinese texts, with the implication that the previous paragraph might be totally wrong. A good approach is to avoid making any kind of analysis or interpretation at all. If there really are different points of view about how to interpret something, they can be represented by quotations or references to external, published authorities. In this case, you could change "The above interpretations are not exactly accurate because ancient Chinese writing are difficult to deciper" to "Other scholars have interpreted the text differently. As one historian noted, "Ancient Chinese texts are often ambiguous and open to several readings." [1] One reading interprets Baekje and Yamato's relationship as one of cultural exchange rather than dominance [2]." See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words for some good ideas about how to do this.

It's true that there are lots of editors who are more intent on promoting a particular point of view than on writing good articles. It's not worth fighting edit wars with them. If your version gets reverted a couple of times, don't just revert to it again. Instead, go to the talk page and try to have a discussion about what needs to change. Propose alternate versions that others might find more acceptable. Clean up the language and grammar of the article (the articles you mentioned could really use it!) Slow down, and focus on discussing one point at a time. If you do these things, one of two things will happen. Hopefully, the other editors who really do want to write a better article will work with you to write a good version, and they'll help you preserve it so you don't have to have edit wars. There's also an unfortunate possibility that there are no such editors working on the article, and whatever you do will just get reverted to the current version. In that case, there's not much you can do; consider walking away to work on something else, or inviting some really experienced users like User:Visviva or User:Nihonjoe to take a look. Fortunately, people who come to Wikipedia to push a particular POV usually get bored after a while and leave. It may be best just to wait them out sometimes. --Reuben 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during November 29 2006 (UTC) to Korea under Japanese rule

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. MER-C 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to delete content. I was trying to correct some sentences that didn't make sense. I'll be more careful. --4.23.83.100 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sogano Umako

Your edit "Soga Umako, who's Korean lineage is apparent in his name Umako meaning Horse-Child), went to great lengths to promote Buddhism in Japan with the help of the Koguryo, Paekche & Silla Kingdoms of Ancient Korea." does not make sence. I've closely read those sources but neither of them says that Umako's Korean lineage is apparent in his name. It is true that the characters of Umako means Horse-Child. But so what?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing Agency of Korean History

You believe that Editing Agency of Korean History outlawed Korean martial arts. But do you have any reliable sources? It is not an organization which can outlaw anything. Please show some reliable sources which says it outlawed Korean martial arts. Before that, please do not add anything about Editing Agency of Korean History to Kumdo or Korean swordsmanship.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you Objectiveye?

Hi. I'm SunDragon34 (talk). Thank you very much for your contributions. I believe you have an account under the name Objectiveye, yes? If you do, would you kindly say so on this page? It is very important that you clarify whether or not you are actually Objectiveye, because another editor believes that you are using your account as a sock puppet. Using a sock puppet account to pretend you are another person is against Wikipedia policy. You are not in trouble; however, I need you to kindly come and clarify for us that Objectiveye is your user name. If you would please do that, and remember to log in when you edit Wikipedia, it would save both of us some trouble. It would also show the community that it can continue to trust you as a friendly, honest, and reliable contributor. If you have any questions about editing or Wikipedia policy, or if you need help with a problem on Wikipedia, feel free to ask me on my talk page. I look forward to working with you in the future, and have a wonderful day! SunDragon34 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I want you to know, first off, that we care about you as a colleague and fellow contributor to Wikipedia. That is why, if the account Objectiveye belongs to you, you really need to come out and say so right now on this page. A checkuser request has been filed on you. If you want to continue your Wikipedia editing, you really, really need to come and talk to us as soon as possible. I will stand up for you and ask the other editors to treat you with mercy and fairness. But if the checkuser report comes back and shows that you are Objectiveye--before you come and talk to us about it--then I don't think I will be able to do much to help you--my hands will probably be tied. Please come and explain your situation to us, or I'm afraid you are in danger of being severely blocked from Wikipedia. I really don't want that to happen. So please--I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Talk to me on your SSP page, talk to me on my talk page, or just talk to me on this page; but please talk to me. You have had plenty of chances to prevent this issue from becoming a problem for you. I don't know how many more chances I can get for you. I'll try to buy you some time to think about it and respond, but I can't guarantee I can get it for you. It's always better for you if you tell someone than it is for you to be found out by someone else. I hope you will make the decision that will allow us to continue to enjoy the benefit of your talents here at Wikipedia. Your contributions are appreciated. Please respond so we can work this out.

And, if you are Objectiveye, then you didn't have to hide your identity on Talk:Kumdo. Your comments were well thought out and quite valid to me. You don't have to pretend to be someone else to make others appreciate your input. We appreciate your input no matter what your username is. That's what's great about Wikipedia: it's not the number of people who say something is right that matters; it's the sensibility and verifiability of the points you make that counts. Please know we care about you and if you need anything at all concerning Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to talk to me on my talk page. That's what your fellow editors are here for. SunDragon34 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

you reported to SSCP

you reported as a Suspected sock puppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/4.23.83.100 by Michael Friedrich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/4.23.83.100

i think you must know this. Manacpowers (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

67.183.7.34

Excuse me. I don't want you to be upset, but are you by any chance the same person as 67.183.7.34, who made this edit, which drew the long dispute? Please tell me just yes or no. I'd like to know whether you are only supporting his edit or you are the the same person as 67.183.7.34 since s/he is the one who started this. I want to know how many thinks just like you do. Please do not think this is a personal attack or something like that. I am asking you because your edit looks like his and 67.183.7.34 never appears again although he is the one who made the first edit. Please do not ignore me. Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Note about tag team editing

Situations of house mates/co-workers and sock puppetry/meat puppetry/tag team editing can be indistinguishable because in all of those cases the editors will appear to be connected by technical evidence For the purposes of Wikipedia, a group of editors who edit towards the same point of view, and are otherwise indistinguishable from one another can be viewed as a single editor for the purposes of applying policy.

I recommend that you and your close associates not support each other in editorial disputes. Tag team editing tends to subvert consensus and may provide an unfair advantage over other editors who might not agree with your editorial position. Wikipedia has a very large number of articles. I am sure you all can happily find things to edit, while avoiding tag team editing. Please review the results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 07:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Committee

You still don't understand. It seems that you don't listen to me. I always don't. Did you see where the {{FACT}} was located? It is right after "because," not after "Korea had a longer history than Japan." Whether Korea has a longer history than Japan is not in dispute. It is true that Japanese historical records start around 100BC. But it does not prove that the Committee did not mention Gojoseon because Korea has a longer history than Japan. Did you understand? PLEASE READ THE SUMMARY BEFORE YOU REVERT EDITS!--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Japan–Korea disputes has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. QueenCake (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cherry blossom, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If you think the current referenced material is incorrect, please do not just remove it. Please add reference to back up your edit. Oda Mari (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message. If there are the custom of sakura viewing in other Asian countries, please show me references of old records of it before you remove the referenced material. See these Korean newspaper articles. In Japanese though, they say the origin of sakura viewing is Japan. [4] and [5]. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You seems to misunderstand. I just restored a Korean editor's referenced version. That was not my edit. Oda Mari (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think the current description is incorrect. Ask the editor of that version. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me why do you keep removing the ...introduced in to Korea during Japanese rule ... part? I showed you the references above. See your talk page entries and think about your past edits, please. And if you have any questions, please ask the editor above before changing it again. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added references to the material you removed from the South Korea section. So please do not remove it again. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Medicine, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Medicine was changed by 4.23.83.100 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-01-18T02:13:36+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

November 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kofun period. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Ainu people. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---