Talk:Liancourt Rocks

"its own violence and greed"

I don't know about this topic, but will someone please remove those blatently POV words and replace them with something appropriate?199.67.238.234 (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest something then please? Im not sure whether the link its using is a biased article or not but it seems to link certain documents from previous agreements or treaties. Its reference 64 to a .pdf document. Ill have a look later and try to rephrase it, unless you can come up with something otherwise. Thanks CorrectlyContentious 13:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC) CorrectlyContentious 14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Instead of saying, "its own violence and greed," say, "the desire for additional territory."Whiterg57 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

correct English

Much of the confusion could be eliminated if an editor would simply make the changes necessary to render the article grammatically correct.Whiterg57 (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make any changes you feel are necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Breaking the rule by User:Elmor rus

Elmor rus (talk · contribs) broke the above written rule regarding "naming lameness" as pushing his POV which practice generally results an "immediate block" to violators per the history of the article. The user who has been editing in Japan and Korea subjects has been long enough to know the rule. Also, his lame edit should be reverted per the rule.--Caspian blue 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The user should have discussed the edit concerning the name of the sea before making it. However, as the resultant article satisfy WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea), i.e. "(East Sea)" is used only once, I don't think revert is necessary. --Kusunose 07:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, if your logic was correct, every "duplicated" terms should be removed from the article.

All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once. The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this.

The revert is not only a violation of the ArbCom probation but also a blatant disregard of the past agreement here.--Caspian blue 07:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith], Caspian (speaking of your comments left on Elmor's talk page). Not everyone who edits an article first reads this talk page. You warned him and he reverted his own edit. End of story. And if you're wondering why I didn't do anything about it when the edit was made: I was on vacation from December 24 until late yesterday (I suspect the same can be said for the other admins watching this page). As it's now been a few days since the edit was made, there's no point in applying the penalty so long after the issue was addressed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I pointed out his violation just like Kusunose and Macgruder did and I suggested Elmor rus to revert on his talk page. Though in such cases, admins here blocked without any previous warning to violators. However, I was bemused at Kusunose's "different attitude" on the same issue. Elmor already reverted his edits after my suggestion, so this is already a "finished story". I would appreciate if you do care less about me.--Caspian blue 07:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Japan has given up soverignty of Liancourt Rocks in 1951 statute

I just found some information (in Korean, though) that Japan has given up the soverignty of Liancourt Rocks in a 1951 statute or two, and it also states that those statutes were erased in some documents Korea received by winning in a lawsuit in Japan. The link is [1]. Keep in mind though that I'm not the best translator in the world and I might have some important parts mistranslated. Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found that source link.

The Ministry of Finance ordinances No 4 February 13,showa 26 (1951).[2]

Prime Minister's Office ordinances No.24 on June 6, showa 26 (1951).[3]

This is just done to have decided the range where the pension reaches by departmental regulations.--Forestfarmer (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)