User talk:Ginnre

signed in due to the Dokdo issue. Basically I'm glad to see the title moved from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. 'Liancourt Rocks' is not neutral at all. Japan pushes hard for "Liancourt Rocks' very much to get rid of the name 'Dokdo'.

Welcome!

Hello, Ginnre, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.

=:*You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.

You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
As a Korean wikipedian, you might want to take a look at Portal:Korea and engage with people of your country.
And lastly, please sign off with Four tides.

I hope that this message would help you to familarise with wikipedia's workings, though. Happy editings!

Mr Tan 06:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ginnre 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss Before Reverting

The Liancourt Rocks page is likely to become locked when you engage in edit wars. They are not helpful, and clearly harm the article. You mention awareness of the policy to develop consensus by discussion, but are not participating in the discussion yourself. Instead, you are reverting without discussion.

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. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! LactoseTI 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the discussion part it looked so clear for me so I changed to my version just once and it was not revert. Don't exaggerate. Ginnre 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps you didn't read the whole discussion. Several users had expressed disagreement. In any case, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Consensus. LactoseTI 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia (NPOV warning)

Welcome!

Hello Ginnre, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! LactoseTI 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Do Not Remove Warnings or Notices From Your Talk Page

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. LactoseTI 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need your welcome because I have already one and I know what you are repeating. And it was not warning, but welcome. Why do you say it was Warning? I won't delete the messages from now on, but please be more sensible when you write in other's user page. Ginnre 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually the "welcomenpov" template, a mild warning. LactoseTI 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention that it was warning. And now you're saying it was warning? Did you wait until I delete that notice to put this one? Ginnre 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you didn't realize it was a warning. It was the second one I left on your page. In general, it is bad practice to delete almost anything; it is much better to archive. LactoseTI 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're eager to put Warning's on my page. Don't you think isn't it too hastly made? Ginnre 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm apologize if you feel offended. You yourself said you weren't completely aware of the policies [here], so these (extremely mild) warnings were only meant as notices to help make you aware. You seem level headed and willing to discuss things. I think you will be able to contribute well to Wipipedia. It just takes a little bit of time to get used to all of the ways things are done. I'm not being sarcastic when I say that you are always welcome to ask me for help, and I honestly do wish you welcome. LactoseTI 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Personal Attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Dokdo: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks.

I suggest you remove the "personal attack" part of your comments LactoseTI 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal attack. That's what's been done in the page. It was you who statred to use that kind of words. Ginnre 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it unrelated to the article in question, but accusing others of "pushing" their ideas is, by definition, a personal attack. LactoseTI 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who provoked first. Who used gung-ho first? Ginnre 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking why you were so persistently making the same change. If you are offended by that term for some reason, I would gladly change it to make it more clear. I was asking you to explain, not criticizing. You, on the other hand, made a personal attack (see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks); it would be kind of you to remove it. LactoseTI 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? I didn't persistently making the same change. You're rather going without much explanation, putting warning on my page. It's so irritating. You don't need to be so provocative and punitive. Ginnre 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Here] and [here] you reverted a change to [this]. The change was currently being discussed, though you implied it was not. Furthermore, your reverts were withing the span of an hour, and that page is particularly touchy--it was just recently unlocked. I'm not doing anything punitively, I simply would like the page to remain open so everyone can continue to improve it. LactoseTI 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know somebody else has done that before. And is two times persistent to you? I said I didn't intend to do edit war. And you're not asking, but it looks like it is first step to brand me a vandalizer. Otherwise, how can you put Warnings so hastly without much explanation beforehand? Ginnre 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These warnings/notices were meant as "explanation". Two times itself is not persistent, but changing it as soon as another editor reverts your revert could be seen as starting an "edit war"--even if you're not, others might pick it up from there. You also mentioned that you don't "respect" "anonymous" editors (meaning editors without a username). That might seem provocative to some.

As far as the personal attack thing goes, I was also referring to this change you made earlier today: [[1]]. It seems you were accusing one group of editors of causing "terror"ism, which is clearly a touchy topic these days. Again, I just wanted you to be made aware of the policy.

Also, before making changes to any article, I suggest that you read the article's current talk page. If you had, you'd have realized this issue itself was currently being discussed. LactoseTI 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editing is usually not credible. WP does not recomment that, either. What was wrong with that? And I added my explanation on my second change. The anonymous asked what Senkaku? So I answered while changing it back to my version. Anyway, I won't change the content so hastly in the future. But weren't you too hasty to put warnings on my page?

Another thing. So you explain with warnings? If I'm really welcome by you, there are many other ways for you to do that nicely. Regarding terror, It didn't specify anyone, so where is personal attack? I just descibed my feeling about what went on in the page when I opened the page today morning. I haven't been in WP this weekend. In that page, my request there was just plainly ignored and a change was made based on a wrongly made consensus. I thought there was still to discuss and consensus hasn't come yet. Ginnre 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I just meant them as notices. I changed the titles of the sections from "warning" to "notice"--maybe it will make you feel better. I have been editing many dozens of pages per day. Utilizing templates is one way to cut down on the time it takes to notify or warn others. When someone wants more clarification, I try to take the time (like this) to explain or discuss with them.

The "terror" comment was clearly directed at the other group, no? Just because an attack is made at a group instead of an individual doesn't make it less of an attack.

As for the consensus, it seemed very clear, and the article is now more stable than ever. If you would like to suggest an alternative name and build a new consensus for it, please do it! If you can come up with a better name or such a convincing explanation, I'd be happy to listen.

I'm sorry that by my using informational templates we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. LactoseTI 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your template was fine, it was just your having no explanation. To make consensus, I commented as much as I can in the page, but I was just ignored. Do I initiate a new discussion? I don't have energy to do that right now. To concentrate on Dokdo is more than enough.

And if it's so irritating to you, I'll change the word terror. But about using the word pushing, I'm still not sure if it was a personal attack. Isn't it no more attacking than gung-ho? Ginnre 20:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing your accusation of "terror." I am not so bothered about your use of the word "pushing" as the whole section--you are clearly commenting on me, not the content. As the notice said, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind.

As for your question about the consensus--you were not ignored, it was simply that your opinion was not shared by others. You are more than welcome to convince the community, or perhaps change your suggestion. LactoseTI 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had problems with your attitude. Several times you interpreted my and other's comments arbitrarily and adhered to your interpretation no matter what you're told. I obviously felt my opinion was distorted by you was wondering why you kept doing that. Be more careful when you are talking about other's comments. Ginnre 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And about this consensus, it was clearly misleading. You just bundled Seven year war and Hideyoshi's and then suddenly got rid of Seven year war and put Hideyoshi's forward. It's outrageous. What was problem with my request to separate Seven year war from Hideyoshi's? Why is it not 'shared'? It's just nonsense. Ginnre 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, if you have a problem with my edits in particular, please leave me a message. As for the consensus, it was not so much a question of whether the article would move back (it was never really at that location, it had been moved without discussion) but to where it was going to be moved. The (relatively few) people who wanted the same name you did mostly admitted it was out of their personal desire, though it conflicted with Wikipedia naming policy. Once they read the policy, even the most vocal seemed to come around. Also, keep in mind the discussion was tilted at the beginning due to a (now banned) user using multiple sock puppets. The already semi-clear consensus became crystal clear once those "users'" comments were removed.

Again, if you feel strongly about it, and can come up with a name that does not conflict with Wikipedia's naming policy, please suggest it. I'm open to new suggestions--keep in mind that the article's current name is not my first choice, either! Perhaps unfortunately, here we all bound by consensus and policy. LactoseTI 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Try to be civil and avoid making "spam"

Please don't post messages on pages that are completely irrelevant to the topic of the page. It can be seen as spam and Wikipedia regards adding spam to articles or talk pages as a form of vandalism. Thank you.

I know your intentions are good--and I agree with you that their edits might be inappropriate. However, it doesn't help anything to go through and make edits like [this] and [this]. Those edits have little to do with the page in question and clearly go against Wikipedia:Civility. Lowering yourself to their level makes you no better than they are. LactoseTI 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so bugging me. What was wrong with my comments? I though it would help similar comments don't come out any more. And I kept my comments as short as possible, not to obstruct the main discussion. I can remain silence to those kind of comments, but I wanted to tell them that kind of behaviour is not acceptable in WP. What would you do when you read that kind of comment? Why is it not civil? I don't understand. Ginnre 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bug you. The Wikipedia definition of incivility is given on the Wikipedia:Civility page that I linked before: incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Leaving a post on an article discussion that does nothing but accuse someone of racism (whether true or not) is not civil.

I already suggested what I consider the proper course of action to be--leave a message on their talk page. As it is, there is much less chance that those comments were left by a "real" editor, and probably won't be seen at all by the person who left them. Instead, it just contributes to a general feeling of disharmony on the talk page. Leaving warnings on their talk page not only gets the message across in a more civil manner, but it leaves a record to eventually end abuse if it stems from consisten places. LactoseTI 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they didn't sign their ID so I didn't know who wrote it. Anyway, I'll do what you told if possible. Ginnre 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the link marked "history" when viewing the discussion, it will show you a list of all changes made. You can find in this list the change in question, along with the author. One particularly nice thing about Wikipedia is that it tracks all edits, and who made them. LactoseTI^T 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Your Edit

I responded on my talk page as well, but wasn't sure if you'd get it, so I am copying it here as well.

For one thing it's present in the reference link itself (which is to what I was referring). Try clicking on it, or look at the reference section at the end. At first I didn't realize it was a reference (sorry, if I did I would have worded the edit summary differently), but the point is the same--it's already in there. That article is already too long (see Wikipedia:Article_size). You're right that it can (and should) be cut further, but I am particularly watching for when it gets even longer. Your edit was (almost verbatim) already in the article. Also, it was almost only restating the first half of the sentence.

In this particular case, I don't see how it's a pro-Korean or pro-Japanese edit; it's simply saying the US isn't supporting Korea or Japan. I have no allegiance to either group; if you look at my edit history I think you'll see me removing vandalism/POV edits from both sides. I'm sorry to cut your edit, but don't be discouraged--please continue to edit and help Wikipedia! LactoseTI^T 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

If there is a fact that you can't find, add a {{fact}} tag and someone will add a reference. This is better than simply removing content. LactoseTI^T 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't remove content. I added another reference, although it was in Korean. You deleted it anyway. Ginnre 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments

Search on Google news in English for "Takeshima," "Dokdo," and "Liancourt Rocks." All articles there seem to back up the current edits. I'm not terribly surprised that Korean language articles phrase things differently. Would you it be better if I included more sources? Again, if you think something is not substantiated, put a {{fact}} tag there. LactoseTI^T 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2ch?

I saw your note on Talk:Dokdo, but when I follow the link, I don't see what you posted. I don't speak Japanese, but the list of usernames should be pretty obvious. Is there some kind of non-obvious message threading there? --Reuben 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Your this edit is Copyvio from 2channel. --Hnyun 01:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll delete it first and see whether your claim is valid. Ginnre 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's free material, see [2],

２ちゃんねるのデータの利用に関して、原則的に自由ですが、２ちゃんねるのデータ自体を利用して対価を取る行為はご遠慮下さい。

要するに、２ちゃんねるをモニターして、お金をとってるマーケティング会社の方は

ご相談頂けないと面倒なことになるかもしれません、、、ってことです。Ginnre 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people can't make money off of the text from their site doesn't make it public domain. In fact, such a restriction implies it is not public domain. —LactoseTI^T 05:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you can read Japanese. Then what do you think of 原則的に自由です? It's 'in principal it's up to your will". Is it still not public? Bring me another reference that it is copyright protected. Japanese sources will do, too. Don't emphasize the latter part. I'll revert when you don't bring the sources. Ginnre 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What they said was:

...原則的に自由ですが、２ちゃんねるのデータ自体を利用して対価を取る行為はご遠慮下さい。

the が meaning "but." As in, "For the most part you can do what you want, but only so long as you don't make money with it." That's tantamount to a declaration of copyright. Settle for linking to it, you can still get your point across. —LactoseTI^T 01:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what が means and I didn't make any money out of it. Then what is wrong with posting the message? Please don't be so arbitrary. I'll repost them if you have no more to say about it. Ginnre 01:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter if you make money out of it or not--that is showing that the text isn't free. If you really knew what が meant, then why did you try to mislead others into believing the first clause was all there is to it?

As we've now established that this text is not public domain/does not qualify for use here, it's inappropriate to post it. You can, however, talk about it all you like, and include a link to the text itself. Your point will still be made. —LactoseTI^T 11:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you're so arbtrary. When did we establish that? You don't understand what 自由 means? To use the text in 2ch.net is 自由 in the first place. Don't make simple thing complicated. As I said, I'll repost them sooner or later. Ginnre 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repost copyrighted text. You have been notified by several users now of the fact it is a copyright violation, and even had pointed out to you specifically where it says it is not free use (you cannot use it for profit, etc.). You may create as much original content as you want. Talk about your thoughts on the matter, add a link to the origin, but do not post copyrighted text. —LactoseTI^T 20:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had answered my last question, I would accept what you said here. However, as you didn't answer the question, and I know when you would answer, it would be hard to prevent me from reposting, I repost. Would you be more sincere when you argue? Ginnre 05:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What question? I showed you exactly where it said it is not public domain--they explicitly say it cannot be used for commercial purposes, which means it is not free. You should not post such text here--all text posted in Wikipedia must be "freer" than that. —LactoseTI^T 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic analysis of 2ch.net (Japan-Korea related)

[3]

In the link they ran the 12th series of analysing and discussing how to take steps against 'Korean manipulation' of english WP.

See thread number 1153715761 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 12.

In the thread, edits from Nihonjoe, Reuben, Circeus, Zonath, Kuru, Gogo Dodo, Zetawoof, Appleby, Goodfriend100, Bigtop, Ginnre, TheFarix, Pilotguy, Pgk were classified as pro-Korean or written by Korean.

Each thread ran up to 1000 replies and that was 12th of them. It was several months ago, so I don't know how many more series of those analysing and discussing have gone through so far. Ginnre 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree image - could you help ?

I just noticed your post on the unfree images - and I take it that you can read Korean ? If so, could you spare a few minutes to look over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#August_13 - the calligraphy image. I'm not clear if it's actually the artist's in questions hand writing or merely someone writing something he said. Many thanks. Megapixie 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for clearing that up. Megapixie 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're very welcome! Ginnre 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea

Could you return to the discussion? I think I am dominating it, but the Japanese editors won't submit. (Wikimachine 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Link Vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it 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.

Please don't change valid links to redirects. It's considered vandalism. Komdori 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the link? It was not valid (In the text it was red). That's why I updated the link. Why is it vandalism? Would you be more discrete before you write something on others page? Ginnre 17:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are familiar with the correct name for the page since you regularly contribute there. I didn't realize there was a minor typo there at first, but "fixing" it by changing it to a redirect term is not appropriate. Komdori 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't miss the error because the name was RED in the text. Imjin war redirects anyway to the article, for me it was more convinient. What's wrong? I think you should apologize for what you have done here beause you assumed wrong and were not cautious.

As you see above, LactoseIT used Linacourt Rocks for Dokdo. Would you say the same thing to him/her in the same manner? Ginnre 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If LactoseIT changed an article in that way, I would definitely leave a warning since the page is currently not in that location. Your change did not appear in red because I was looking at the diff, not at the text--where it doesn't appear in red. Even if I had known, I still would have left a notice on your page to not insert redirect links. I'm certain that you are aware of the current title for that article, and fixing the type (one letter) is not much of a burden--instead, you used the opportunity to sneak in a reference to a redirect link. Please don't do this. Komdori 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've done nothing wrong? How about your manner? Ginnre 17:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know the policy by using a test template? Why are you so quick to get offended? Why not thank me for letting you know, and move on? Komdori 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LatoseIT was as strict as you, but more polite. You're as strict as LatoseIT but more rude. It's like LatoseIT is Tatemae and you're Honne of the same person :) Ginnre 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not mean to be rude. Since you made a change that was not in tune with Wikipedia policy, I let you know. Komdori 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Note

Ginnre, thanks for continuously taking part in the disscussions on Dokdo. Many of the Korean editors seem to be wikibonked, but you are still going strong. Please hold up the discussion for the others so that our work will not be lost. =Kite String= 23:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, too. It's ridiculous seeing the name Dokdo is constantly ignored and challenged. It just shows how much of Korean voice has been not heard in the world in general, whereas Japanese voice just prevailed, which obviously distorted the state of the matter. Ginnre 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dokdo article

Regarding Dokdo article, I changed the introduction to look like that of Senkaku islands article. Some Japanese editors insist on using the word 'control' over 'administer' and making the first sentence of the article "Dokdo is one of the several terms that refer to .. " instead of "Dokdo is a group of ...". Last time I did that was about a year ago, and a flock of Japanese editors (i think about 5-6) who were active in Japwiki (but not Engwiki) came over to Engwiki to constantly revert. Seems doubly hypocritic to me that some would insist on different standards on "disputed" islands. Just wanted to hear your opinion. Deiaemeth 05:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I don't like the opening paragraph, either, as I don't like the title for Imjin War. And I agree with you that their behaviour is inconsistent. It looks like the same thing you experienced happened again. But I'm fed up with useless and exausting arguing with those hopeless burgers. So I didn't go further. Ginnre 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for your thoughts on the Dokdo:talk "Rename Vote" section. Gees somepeople just don't get it do they? Dandan xD 22:25, 18 November 2006 (KST)

Copyright violation

Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia
We appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove any copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text.

I don't agree with you as the text can be still used as fair use even if the text were copyright protected, which is highly dubios as it is 自由 to use it. Use this warning for more serious copyright violations. Ginnre 04:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reposted the entirety of the work, and even more than that, you didn't even really comment on it more than, "Look at this."--so it's clearly not covered by fair use. It's not "highly dubious"--they say explicitly that you cannot use the text for certain purposes. That means it's protected. Don't take one work out of context that was immediately followed with a "however." That website is known for its hate mongering and bad spirit. Just link to it, and talk about it--problem solved. What's more, I think very little of your point is lost since relatively few Wikipedians read Japanese anyway.

I didn't leave you this warning the first however many times you posted this text. Due to your persistance and blatant disregard for the policy, I left it now so that you would see that it is in fact Wikipedia policy, not mine. —LactoseTI^T 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is 自由 in the first place. It supersedes your shaggy argument, got it? Why would they write that sentence first before they talk about money? You don't get this simple fact??? If you so badly insist, I can repost it as fair use according to your taste. Wait for that. Now everyone knows how you're biased on Japan/Korea issues as Goodfriend100 points below. Simple comparison of your listing of copyright related iamges will show that obviously. I ask you to step back and think about your editing, rather than attacking so many Korea-related articles. It doesn't help anything. I don't understand how you become a patroller. Ginnre 04:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your point. They basically said, "In general, you can do use this text, but not for commercial purposes." Are you saying because they said, the "in general" part first, it means it's more important/supercedes the "but" part? Sorry, it doesn't work that way... I really don't see what your issue is--why not just post the link and discuss it? Other users have done this--it's effective and, better yet, legal. —LactoseTI^T 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your problem. You wish to solve and end arguments and disputes all the time, but you simply create more enemies by posting tags on them and not cooperating with them. Also, you and Komdori make it your job to delete uncopyrighted images only on the Korean related articles that I see. Also, you never answer questions or reply directly to our arguments and supporting facts on the Imjin War/Hideyoshi's/Seven Year war (whatever you wanna call it). There is enough facts to move the article. Do you have any counter arguments? No, you simply avoid the discussion by saying "this title (its not a title in the first place) has more results on google". It gets really frustrating when you or Komdori don't cooperate. Good friend100 14:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully. I'm removing Japanese POV left by previous vandals. Also, this article doesn't need McCune romanizations in parenthesis.

Opening paragraph of Dokdo

Actually if you read the archives you'll see that this solution was proposed long ago with no objections. It had since stood for sometime before users with agendas changed it. This is a perfectly acceptable compromise and works flawlessly for other controversial articles such as Palestine and Eretz Yisrael. Cheers. —Aiden 14:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demand of Wikimachine

Wikimachine wants to learn the summary of this thesis.[4] You seem that Japanese can be spoken. Please summarize it for him because you can speak English that is much more accurate than I. 半ケツのコピーよりは、ずっと有益だ。--Opp2 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. By the way, it is not 半ケツ, but 半月. If you thought it was useful, would you be more humble and try to learn something, not to keep kicking other's butts around? Ginnre 05:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

investigation by niitakago in 1904

I made a new part in TALK PAGE of Dokdo article for you. I am waiting for your source with expectation.--Opp2 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opp2's talk page

Hey Ginnre! I happened to visit Opp2's talk page, and I saw all of your warnings... I don't think he needs them. I was in his place once, and another user putting warnings on my talk page didn't do any good to calm me down. There's just a learning curve. Soon, he's going to be an invaluable Wikipedian -that's exactly what I bet. HF GL! (Wikimachine 05:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I learned the same way before. You can see that in my talk page. That's why I did so :) Ginnre 04:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation: Dokdo

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dokdo, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dokdo.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Dokdo

Hi, just wanted to mention that I added some comments and a proposal at the mediation. Thanks. Wikiment 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dokdo and the SF treaty

[5]

Excerpt

Takeshima and early US. Peace Treaty drafts

During the Allied occupation of Japan, Takeshima was divided from Japan by the so-called "MacArthur Line." (24) This was drawn only for the occupation authorities' administrative convenience and was not necessarily intended as a final border demarcation. In fact the same directives that provided the MacArthur Line also detached the whole of the "Northern Territories" and Okinawa from Japan.

From late 1946 onward, several drafts of a peace treaty with Japan were prepared in the State Department.25 Those drafts and other relevant documents retained in the U.S. Archives suggest that the U.S. government indeed favored the transfer of Takeshima to Korea -- until November 1949. In the early drafts "Takeshima," also under its English name "Liancourt Rocks," was clearly specified as among the "offshore Korean islands" that Japan was to renounce. For example, the 2 November 1949 draft states (Chapter II, Territorial Clauses, Article 6)

Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan How group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port Hamilton (Tonankai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). and all other islands and islets to which Japan has acquired title lying outside the line described in Article 3 and to the east of the meridian 124[degrees] 15' E. longitude, north of the parallel 33[degrees] N. latitude, and west of a line from the seaward terminus of the boundary approximately three nautical miles from the mouth of the Tumen River to a point in 37[degrees] 30' N. latitude, 132[degrees] 40' E. longitude. (26)

Takeshima in the December 1949 Draft

Only one month later, the December 1949 draft contained an important change, by including Takeshima in the areas that were to remain Japanese territory. The draft stated (Chapter II, Territorial Clauses, Article 3),

The territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland Sea (Seto Naikai), Tsushima, Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks). Old Retto, Sado, Okujiri...All of the islands identified above, with a three-mile belt of territorial waters, shall belong to Japan. (27)

This change of the Takeshima disposition appears to have been influenced by a commentary on the previous (November) draft, sent to the State Department by William J. Sebald, political advisor to the Supreme Commander Allied Powers in Japan (MacArthur). (28) Sebald suggested that Takeshima be specified as belonging to Japan, and directly or indirectly provided the reasons of (1) historical validity and (2) strategic considerations.

On historical validity, Sebald stated that Japan's claim to Takeshima was "old and appeared valid," and "it is difficult to regard them as islands off the shore of Korea." The U.S. government, in principle, respected historical validity. Later, in July 1951, when South Korea requested revisions to the draft treaty, Dulles said that if those islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, there should be "no particular problem" in including them in the area that Japan was to renounce. (29) The U.S. official view, delivered to the South Korean side in the next month, was, however, that they should belong to Japan.

Is the draft that Japan doesn't agree to effective? Such International Law doesn't exist. Allied Powers, GHQ, and the United States cannot abandon Japanese territory. It is only Japan that can abandon Japanese territory.--Opp2 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie

ADMINISTRATON AND SOVEREIGNTY

It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.

Your comments

Hey Ginnre,

In response to your comments, I didn't try to demote your vote. I was leaving a response to Wikimachine who tried to remove other users' votes based on them not having so many edits outside Liancourt Rocks. People like you don't have so many, either. I was saying you cannot remove one side without removing the other. I might add that if you feel there is consensus for Dokdo, by all means make a new RM in awhile. --Cheers, Komdori 09:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your statement of bad faith on my talk page, sure I have lots of edits on this issue in the past few weeks (I was actually involved in the discussion for reaching a consensus). If you look before that, you can see a large number of edits on a great variety of topics. --Cheers, Komdori 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komdori has deleted your comments on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKomdori&diff=135079930&oldid=134494988. This guy is obvious a Japanese editor pretending to be Korean.

In response to your comments Ginnre, who cares about my last 500 edits, how about the thousand or so before that? As you said, my recent edits are often (but not always) about a specific topic, but that doesn't mean I have always focussed just there. You, on the other hand, have focussed only on a specific article for the year or so you've been here. That was my point. --Cheers, Komdori 11:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the definition of a single purpose account. You have stuck to one subject almost exclusively. I don't care, but someone was trying to say that there only were editors on the Liancourt Rocks side that did this. I'm not trying to demote everyone, just I'm saying that it's not just one-sided. --Cheers, Komdori 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm actually involved in work on a consensus recently you say it's single purpose? Read up what it means, it says nothing about "recent edits." Anyway, even my recent edits are widespread, over dozens of articles. Perhaps you only saw one since that's your main interest. And for the record I didn't say we should exclude you or them, I just said it wasn't just Liancourt Rocks people who edit a lot on the Liancourt page. --Cheers, Komdori 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]