LactoseTI

Archives

1

re:admiral yi statue

i appreciate the notice. Good friend100 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kimura

Actually, looking at the source for that image now, I'm surprised that I uploaded it because it is difficult to determine if the image is free of licensing issues. Japanese copyright law is "death+50." However, even though that picture was taken in 1935, it's unknown when and if the author of the picture died. I think, instead, the licensing should be marked under "fair use," like Image:Slayers.jpg. If fair use can't be justified, then the image should be deleted. Cla68 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

HappyApple contact II

Hi, thank you for leaving me a note on my discussion page. Although i respect your position about fair use images, i disagree with you.

As those images represents paintings which may help a casual reader to understand the nature of this conflict and the are indeed photos which are likely to be public sector owned (potential canditate for public domain).Being part of the Korean navy As stated on this source at the bottom of the page-Korean Naval Academy (state entity and would-if requested-qualify as public domain) . It seems that the original artists made these paintings during the late 1970s for Korean history books and for promoting korean history during Park Chung Hee's era (to "Yonsei University Press").(Further details on comments).

These paintings represents an artistic description of a series of iconic battles that affected East Asia during the 16th century, stated that, it would be appropiate that if "graphic material" is available and used with precaution and not abuse would adecuately qualify to Wikipedia fair use doctrine.

And, if you still dont think so, why don't invite, Korean folk's to post their oppinions, about if this image should be eliminated or not. They have their point of view more that has to be considered, and it is likely that their's is more accurate than mine. Perhaps they should give a better judgement about this issue. --HappyApple 03:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the unfree image site: the Korean Naval Academy simply had a copy of the picture on their website (with permission), it didn't say anything about them creating it. It is a painting made in the last few years, and clearly is not fair use. I'm not sure if you are aware of how "iconic" is being used--this painting is not even famous or well-known, it hardly borders on iconic. I also doubt that the photo really offers something text does not--it's not a map/picture showing how things unfolded, it's simply a modern artist's imagination of how it might have looked.

It is not a "vote"--it's a rationale, one that is yet not sufficiently formulated (I have doubts that in the case of the battle painting such a sufficient formulation exists). LactoseTI 05:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

HappyApple contact III

Hi, i have read your response that you have left me on my discussion page, below my impressions: I am aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy but it is also true that each editor has the right to post their impressions on whether the deletion is accurate or not. And the tag at the bottom of each image speficies this very well.

Dont forget the deletion will not be done by a casual wikipedian, it will be done by an administrator, which i hope he or she would be fairly neutral on this issue.

I have already stated my position about the deletion, i don't think it is fair nor accurate, to me, as a casual reader, it really helped me to understand how this conflict developed and i think it will have the same effect on newer readers. (An image worth more than a thousand words), i am already aware how it works fair use, i have experienced simmilar cases before and i belive this case in particular can be considered a little bit out of the line.

I think if fair use can be claimed for each painting as they dont seem to abuse of fair use itself and they actually help as a graphic description for each battle.

As i said on "speedied" , while i respect your possition, i disagree. (Reasons already given).

About Hwacha images, unfortunatelly i havent received any response nor from Angelo Toscano (the creator of the image of Hwacha standing at the Palace) or from Andy "-Timur Lamed-" (the creator of Hwacha firing arrows), it is likely that if i dont receive their response on this week, the images will be deleted. It will be sad, and hardly to admit that copyright policy on Wikipedia can be very awful sometimes, unfortuntally there is nothing else what i can do for trying to save these images, just waiting.--HappyApple 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding to image Image:KimSunAh 2.jpg i have replaced the previous picture with a tv screenshot (properly tagged) from MBC-TV aired in June 2005. I hope this may settle down this issue.--HappyApple 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think it will help, I'll send emails over, too; those are nice photos. LactoseTI 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:My Name is KSS.jpg it was from a DVD cover of the DVD edition of the tv show, thank you for letting me know about the wrong tag.--HappyApple 07:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Thanks for your work on Dokdo and other Japan/Korea-related articles. Although I reverted one of your edits on Dokdo earlier, I just want to say that I think you're doing good work and I really appreciate that you're aiming to make good articles, not just to represent any one POV. Keep up the good work! --Reuben 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have no problem with my edits being reverted when it's done with the right attitude--to make the articles the best they can be. Working on controversial topics is naturally difficult, I think, and it is always nice to meet an editor who particularly cares about making them into great articles that explain the controversy in question without catering to it. Thank you for putting forth the effort. LactoseTI 08:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops!

Wasn't my vandalism. :) Soulresin 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I know you fixed it. Just good natured ribbing. :) Soulresin 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks for having a good sense of humor about it. LactoseTI 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, LactoseTI, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the test templates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TestTemplates. Put the appropriate test template on his page immediately following problematic behaviour. Start at the lower levels and walk them through. After a final warning, report him at vandalism in progress. If he does something really bad, skip a level. But I'm not going to block someone who doesn't have a "final warning" template on their page that is more than a day old. Bucketsofg✐ 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not warning. Would you change what you have written on my user page?

Why do you say I deleted your warning? It was your allegedly welcome notice. I didn't delete your warning. It was basically the same welcome notice I had already, that's why I deleted your Welcome notice. I let stay your writing about Dokdo on my user page. Are you trying to put a bad image on me? Please change the title you put in my user page. Ginnre 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a mild npov warning, not just the standard welcome. After leaving the initial warning message, rather than just "ramping up" the warnings, I thought it might be beneficial to leave the template to spell out the details a bit more. LactoseTI 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have mentioned that earlier and advised me not to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ginnre (talk • contribs) 15:54, August 11, 2006 (UTC)

I generally warn people not to do things after observing them doing it once first. It's no big deal/don't worry about it. LactoseTI 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But you keep put Warnings on my page. Why are you so provocative? It was you who provoke first. Who said gung-ho first? And let me have your reference regarding expressing 'pushing one's opinion' is personal attack. Ginnre 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I only put warnings to match your actions. If you were offended by gung-ho, let me know and I'll change it to "persistent" which is what I meant--I was asking for explanation of why you are so persistent in making the same edit, especially when it was under discussion and a (mini-)consensus seemed to be reached against it already. It was only a weak "personal attack", but it was clearly off topic. The comment where you accused others of "terror" seemed a bit more harsh. Since you are relatively new, and one of these comments was "borderline", I thought you might benefit from simply knowing the policy. LactoseTI 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I didn't delete your warning. Your welcome message didn't have any indication that that was warning. So I asked you to change what you have written on my page. It's just not right. Ginnre 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it's no big deal that you didn't realize it was a warning/notice. What's more, you might not have realized that it's (generally) bad practice to just remove things from your talk page. It was more an informational notice than anything else. LactoseTI 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just factually wrong. I didn't delete 'warning'. So I asked you to change the word to 'welcome' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ginnre (talk • contribs) 16:13, August 11, 2006 (UTC)

I added "or notices"--hopefully this is to your satisfaction? Also, please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. LactoseTI 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GFDL

Hi! This is Wikimachine. Upon your notice, I replied to you at the possibly unfree images section. Could you take a look at it? (Wikimachine 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the update; I responded as well. LactoseTI^T 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You deletion of my edit on Dokdo

I don't see the sentiment you mentioned. Where is it? "that sentiment is already present just a few words later (redundant))". I think my edit won't harm the article that much to be deleted. If you want to keep the article so concise, why do you keep, for example, current situation section as-is? The subway exhibition paragraph is more than redundent or too in detail. It looks like in general you are too benevolent for Japanese favorable edit and too strict for Korean fovorable edit. Ginnre 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I reduced the reference and added the content in the text, making it no more redundent. There was an explanation missing why the US is today not taking a position. So I don't think adding one explaining sentence is too much. Ginnre 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I think, that it belongs more in the article than the reference section. Thanks for letting me know of your edit motivation and drawing my attention to that section; I was able to remove a couple of factual inaccuracies and I was able (I think) to improve the wording as well. LactoseTI^T 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yasukuni shrine

I didn't violate neutral point of view. I wrote that based on the following reference. read this: [1] [2] I think you are benevolent for Japanese favorable edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.247.53 (talk • contribs) 00:35, August 15, 2006

I work hard to try to remain neutral; please read about Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. To respond to some of the questions you asked, but then deleted--I do not have any personal bias, and no, I didn't warn the others who were removing your changes.

At first, you inserted an extra line of explanation (in an already long article) which was unnecessary. When someone pointed it out, you seemed very persistent in reinserting it. It was explaining something that not only was already there, but could be clicked for more information. The only reason seemed to be to put an "anti-" slant in the article.

The main reason I put the notice on your talk page is that you are editing from an IP, rather than making an account. It is difficult to know which policies someone in this situation might know. If you didn't know the policy, perhaps you'd grow discouraged by having your revisions reverted--and I'd prefer you were encouraged to add information to Wikipedia, while at the same time understanding why this particular revision was objectionable. I strongly suggest you get a user account--it's easy and private. I think you'll find it worth the small bit of effort. LactoseTI^T 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to believe that you don't have any personal bias. I didn't mean to put "anti-" slant. I just wanted to make more clear. Because it is a FACT. museum official website (English) Go to 2nd floor of museum. You will know why I call it as a FACT. My comment is a FACT. So I couldn't accept your comment about the neutral-point-of-view thing. The person who kept deleting my sentences describes himself as a Japanophile. He was very persistent in redeleting it also. Did he get any warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.247.53 (talk • contribs) 03:57, August 15, 2006

One of the main reasons I left the notice for you was that you are editing without an account and may not know the policy at all. Repeating facts unnecessarily might give someone the impression there is only "one side to the story." It seems there are multiple points of view here, and one should not be over-represented. LactoseTI^T 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mutual Notification Talks

Would you please ask me before you modify my edit? You keep change my edit first and I keep asking to change again. Why should this be like this? The link [3] comes entirely from Japanese source. Acutally the article is the same as one posted in Kyodo news. I don't know Komdori's intention to cite an Indonesian source, but it's misleading. And I checked Korean source about the meeting and the Korean sentiment was different. They would hear what Japanese propose and would keep the discussion channel, but their policy didn't change significantly. And it is not yet determined whether to establish that kind of procedure [4]. I don't know whether you can read Korean, but I couldn't find an english page. And it is confusing to use 'the disputed area' because they only mentioned and discussed about EEZs, not about the islands. So this edit could be easily misleading and need to be modified. Ginnre 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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. LactoseTI^T 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks edit

Hi! Thanks for warning me about the edit, but it wasn't me who wrote that segment originally, so I won't insist that that is what should be there. I have to say this latest name change stirred up quite a storm though! I still wonder if it's a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps all the activity will prove to be a good thing in the end. Rōnin 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! I have hope that it turns out for the best in the end myself. It seems a lot of people have their eyes on that page now, perhaps because of the change. LactoseTI^T 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your NPOV attempt

Thanks for the heads up. Some people seem to have an axe to grind on this page. Honestly I don't think there is anything we can do but continue reverts which undermine NPOV in the article. —Aiden 04:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

HappyApple contact IV

Hi, i've noticed you tagged Image:HwachaAttack.jpg as copyright infringement. I uploaded the image to explain the portrayal of hwacha in games and to be used in Civilization III Play the World. I also noticed the size of the image was larger to be considered fair use so i scaled to a minimum size the image to be fair use tolerable and also specified a fair use for the picture, and added details, i hope the recent modifications i did may have solved this problem.--HappyApple 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is promotional art, but i think the {{game-screenshot}} tag is more accurate one for this picture because it is related to a computer game. The source is already stated on the image description page. --HappyApple 05:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Peace and wisdom

Hello, i've noticed you left a quick note in my discussion page, but before post my impressions, i want to say that all my personal messages to user:Goodfriend100 are only to him, not directly to you, i 'll see if he is willing to read the message and to feedback me as he can. So i was expecting a little bit more discression.

Here my further impressions:

1. First of all, i've never used the word "accussation" on any of my messages to Goodfriend100, in fact you have used to me, and i believe you are exagerating on this.
2. Second, i want to remark that all the messages i write are only to Goodfriend100 in aims to give him assitance on experiencing wikipedia which can become sometimes', into an unfun or unfriendlier place.
3. Third, to state, i try to stir up bad feelings, or i am using a bad form behavior is contradictory to my philosophy of "codemning all personal attack". I have not any intention to do so. This also applies for asking directly to you. In all personal problems i have experienced here, i always find the source of the problem and try to reach an accord, and this goes to my images or contributions. And you can see it already posted on Contact I,II,III,IV.
4. Where did i said or used the word Anti-Korean when referring to you? (except quoting you after your message on my discussion page). All what i try to say on Goodfriend's page is, for me, in my humble oppinion it is so rare and strange that, Wikipedia which has thousands and thousands of images and articles which require immediate attention (mathematics, science, history..and so on), you seem most of the time, to follow all the korean related articles and usually to tagging images and making edits which curiously always are notifications of "copyright infringement".

• Single line stubs are not only present on Korean pages, i think you know that. But for me it is very strange that you seem to follow specially those, and even asking for deletion stating that it should be merged to other pages, and suggesting it is not so "notable" and that it was little available which was later confirmed to be false.
• You say on your user page that TI stands for "Intolerant" and after adding this and your behaviour in articles which Goodfriend among other editor have contribuited so far, i suspect maybe you is acting uncivil and perhaps those edits are some sort of online harrasment. I am not the only person who think on this way, users like Taeguk Warrior also think this (see: [5]) Perhaps i am wrong and you meant, lactose intolerance. Which on that case i apologice for the missunderstanding.
• I agree on Goodfriend's statement about English Wikipedia, while i aware it is on english language it doesn't mean, other alternative names should be prohibited or minimized its usage. In fact i have a slight suspicion that the name he proposed might be appropiate in all languages including english, and i will look for it in the library. (Online sources most of the time are always wrong).

Finally, i have not any intention to make this a dispute, in my oppinion, i think your patrolling range should be more wider instead focusing in only korean related articles (which of course this is a suggestion). As feedback i hope this message can extinguish any flames which may have been produced so far, cheers. --HappyApple 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I didn't mean to "butt in" on your conversation with Good friend100, it just makes me concerned when someone starts throwing around the word "harrassment," which is clearly not true.

As for the issue of Hideyoshi's invasions, if you really come up with a good argument (good enough for arbitration) I would suggest you first present it on that article's talk page. I like some other names better, too, and there is perhaps a better name for the article. It's not like it would not be considered. Simply, though, whatever we come up with needs to follow the English Wikipedia naming conventions.

Of course, I will attempt to broaden my search range for cleaning up articles, but it's easy to hop from article to article, and there is so much clutter to clear! Thanks again for your response! —LactoseTI^T 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mas Oyama Response

The editor who keeps reverting the Mas Oyama article is one of several POV pushers on Wikipedia who appear to have chips on their shoulders the size of Seoraksan mountain. They're very persistant, stubborn, and immature in the way they operate. Thus, I choose not to waste my time edit warring with them. They don't seem to understand that they undermine their credibility with their behavior. I plan on eventually making other improvements to the article that hopefully will be left alone. Cla68 08:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of the whole situation. Thanks for the response. It's particularly difficult on these "out of the way" articles. Eventually, perhaps we can find a consensus on the article's talk page. —LactoseTI^T 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

hey fantastic..my english could be better so correct any problem you see. Thanks :) I leave that for today. bye!

Re: Sui-Chan

Totally understandable about deleting the article if you wish. I was just adding something that might be real, might not. who knows? :) I was thinking if it's on Wiki, more people might be able to put more info on this, and find out if it's a hoax or reality.

Heh, I had never heard about it, so it was fun to look into it. Sometimes I wish the notability requirements weren't there :D. —LactoseTI^T 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

no worries mate. :) we'll see what happens. After this weekend, it'll either be on CNN or in the garbage.

Maybe we should bring back the Suichan page, because even though, it's a hoax, it's an internet phenomenon... --DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of--but I'm not certain that it meets the notability requirements. There were other Internet phenonmenon that seemed to be a lot more widespread that didn't make the cut. Do you think it's possible to make a case for notability? —LactoseTI^T 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did some research and it would leave a very interesting article, I myself have alot to add if I could (with sources of course) - On the other hand, it would require vandalism monitoring and possibly locking after the initial article was written... something that a Sysop would have to deal with --DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've determined a way to make it notable for wikipedia, if a television network makes a report about it, then it should be made into an article... --DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not interact with Taeguk Warrior

You are engaging in an edit war over his user talk page. Please do not interact with Taeguk Warrior at all as it is very clear that the two of you do not get along in the least. You are only pouring gasoline on the fire. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken; based on your suggestion I just turned off the program that was watching his page for blanking. Can I at least revert removal of tags from the images themselves (rather than his talk page)? I have no problem with him, and I have seen a couple decent edits he has made.

My current (homebrew) vandalism program watches pages I tag as recently vandalized and pops up "repeat vandalism." I suppose this could end up in edit wars like with him in this case (I didn't give it much thought because it generally is effective at stopping things like page blanking). Do you think this script in general is bad/leads to edit wars easily? I'd like to avoid it, though if it's on anything besides a talk page, I would think it a good idea? —LactoseTI^T 06:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Its his own userpage, leave it alone and better yet leave him alone. Good friend100 13:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

pictures, tagging disputed

Image:Navalzhugenu.jpg Liang does not respond and I have no access to this book in considerable time. Can you look it up please? Wandalstouring 10:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll start looking today. —LactoseTI^T 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of game references

If you want to know why, I talk about why I am removing game references on my user page. It is mainly because I think such references are not relevant to most articles and really are just plugs for these games. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 13:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. Keep in mind that there are often images (such as screenshots) that can only be used as free use if they are there to illustrate the game in question. When you remove the text about the game, it would be nice if you can keep an eye on whether such images exist. If you remove the text, it would be good to remove the images that rely on it as well. —LactoseTI^T 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes forget they come with images at all. Often it is "X is featured in the game 'y'"--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of removing game references has been already discussed at game's talk page, and the result in a non direct vote was oppose to deleting that information. In order to settle down this dispute i contacted an advocate (user:Pedant). (Case already closed) and the result was "keep". The argument used was "There are numerous game references in wikipedia articles, and articles about games which have references to information that is outside the scope of the game... and as long as it is factual and relevant it belongs. Remember wikipedia is not paper and more information is better than less information. Please let us use cooperative effort and not wikilawyering."--HappyApple 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But I think games in general should not be refered to in most articles. So I disagree with the argument that games are already refered to in many articles and thus it is alright for the article in question to reference a game. Two or more wrongs does not make a right and I think game references in the article in question and many other articles is wrong. The game's own article should reference this article and any other article. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From Hwacha's talk page

While i respect your point of view i disagree, in fact, i would be very instructive to a user or reader to find information which is bidirectional instead only monodirectional. References should complement to each other, like Brownian motion and Tyndall effect, and i feel games are part of it. And i dont think that there is two or more wrongs make a right, i see it as a wikicommunity consensus which in fact sees articles open to editors to expand sections rather than minimizing its content or restricting topics.cheers,--HappyApple 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting content that other people have worked on does not encourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. I appeal to those of you who have arbitrarily decided to remove references to popular culture (particularly games) from articles: please, please find something better to do! You are all obviously busy and productive contributors in other ways. Do not let your personal prejudices / intellectual snobbery persuade you that many other members' contributions are worthless. Assume good faith and only use deletion as a last resort Matt 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this made it to my talk page--I've never removed any pop culture sections, although I did weigh in on why such action might be desired. —LactoseTI^T 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Such discussions rarely make it to the right talk page. :p Anyways, right now I am taking a concensus poll on Talk:Hwacha and I want you to come vote. The concensus unofficially is 4 for keep and 6 for delete. If it is officially that, then the other used cannot complain. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 08:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Alyson Hau‎ images

How am I suppose to fix the images? The wallpaper image was emailed to me from the owner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WildWorks (talk • contribs) 09:47, August 19, 2006 (UTC) —

I believe you are referring to Image:AlysonHau2.jpg‎ and Image:AlysonHauWallpaper01.jpg, right? We need to get some kind of verifiable copyright status. The wallpaper image seems to be created out of unfree images (the photo itself seems professionally done). The creator of the wallpaper's permission will only go so far--he must have permission for the component images as well. Is there a place where we can confirm copyright status of them? —LactoseTI^T 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Villiage pump calling

Can you come over to the village pump and give me your opinion? Village pump

I think the chances of this gathering strong support without past cases is fairly low. Maybe you can help me provide a few cases where pop cult sections were removed for the betterment of the article. Right now, Terracotta Army has a largish section with references to games that I think are irrelevant and are fancruft. Another user disagrees with me and refuses to allow it to be removed. Can you help me argue for the sections removal? --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know it went to the village pump. The case of "gorilla" was a great mention; I agree it seems tough to get any kind of real strict guideline passed. There is admittedly a very fine line between plugging a game and marking something as really showing up in popular culture. On the other hand, with things as they are now, if I were a game manufacturer I'd find every last item, etc. in my game and put screenshots on every conceivable article that was halfway relevant. I agree that many such references smack of "plugging". I'll head over to Terracotta Army, and keep an eye out for other cases as well. —LactoseTI^T 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I am being attacked by another user right now. On the talk page for Hwacha, I am in the middle of a dispute. The advocate for HappyApples is focusing on me, what I have said and Pedant is making statements about me I object to instead of the content, or atleast it seems that way to me. Can you yake a look and give me a comment on my talk page about Pedants behaviour? Thanks! --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding warnings to my talk page

The only content I removed was your false and uncited information on the Mas Oyama article. That is not vandalism. 72.69.105.138 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You should not remove this information, but instead tag it. You also removed some pictures (twice) from the Samurai article. If you need more help on how to tag these things as disputed, let me know, but do not simply remove them. —LactoseTI^T 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, LactoseTI, you are incorrect here. Any editor is entitled to remove unsourced information if they so wish, the burden of proof is on the those wanting the information kept. If information is disputed, adding a {{fact}} to it is not sufficent. It should either be cited or removed, as per official policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Adding {{fact}} to an article should only be used in minor, non-harmful cases, and regardless, it is only to be used as a temporary measure - if sources are not forthcoming, the information must be removed. In any case, any editor is perfectly entitled to remove uncited information, they are not required to tag it first, although many do. Also, removing uncited information according to policy is not vandalism, so your giving of warnings for doing so was unjustified. Regards, MartinRe 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on how to use the cite/fact tage; actually that user was into some pretty hardcore vandalism--so much so, that he wound up getting himself a permanent ban--he was using ips to skirt the weeklong bans he was already on.

If I recall, the sections he removed actually had been sourced--he was removing sourced tagged/sections saying that he "didn't see" the sources/links. It was an obvious misguiding to distract from the real issue. I'm aware that unsourced material can be removed, but in this case it wasn't what was happening (offhand, I can't recall if this happened from this specific IP or not--I'd have to check).

Thanks again for bothering to type up additional explanation--I think half the disputes on Wikipedia would be solved if people helped nudge people onto knowing how things work a bit more. —LactoseTI^T 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't from this IP, which hasn't been blocked (and I can't see any similar IP's editing the same articles). Also, I should note that the actions of this IP that you gave warnings for (removing/rewording some sentences/unlinking images) aren't vandalism. At worst, this is a content dispute, and a content dispute is not vandalism. The fact that detailed edit sumarries were given for all editing makes it even clearer that this was not vandalism, so please be more careful in the future, accusing someone with whom you have a content dispute of vandalism isn't the best way to solve a problem. It's nothing personal, as I've seen many people do same thing, but I do try and correct people when I notice it. Regards, MartinRe 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on your talk page (to avoid duplicating everywhere). —LactoseTI^T 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea

Could you answer the arguments directly one by one? They are outlined. Thanks. (Wikimachine 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)) P.S. Please don't conspire with JPOV administrators behind the scene. And by revert war, I meant you guys were going to initiate it by responding with edits, not words.

Now I've proved to you that English only pages on Google have more Imjin War than your variations. Also on Google Scholar. Only place you hold edge is on Google Book. And you haven't answered why Google Book shouldn't be used. (Wikimachine 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Please keep it on the talk page--I am watching that, and continue to respond. There I and others also describe why your desired name is still among the minority, based on proper searches and the naming policy. —LactoseTI^T 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your commentaries

Please stop using weasel words or I will have you blocked. You keep switching the Seven year war/Japanese invasion/Imjin war article to misdirect it in a certain way. The scorched earth was an incident that happened one time do to civilian uprising. It was not a campaign or military policy. Please do not put in your POV with out references to back it up. --Tyler 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no weasel words in use. I even tried to compromise to make it more acceptable to you--the statement as I inserted it was appropriate even if it did happen only once. That statement belongs in; I'll source the widespread part to include the rest. Thanks for the reminder. —LactoseTI^T 12:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you think all your edits and comments are right while others don't. Also, when you make comments that are not nice, you think that they are perfectly fine and always respond "I didn't hurt your feelings". How do you know what the other person thinks? Good friend100 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Short answer: please don't mischaracterize I've never presumed to tell others how they feel. I know others may not realize the edits are always right; that's why I go back and add sources if it's questioned. —LactoseTI^T 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Navalzhugenu2.jpg and Image:Navalzhugenu.jpg

As far as I am concerned, nothing more is needed. However, if you have started a process and can get the original source info without to much problem you should. There may be someone in the future that challenges what you have now. Regards -Nv8200p talk 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

Could you show me what your signature looks like unconverted? KiteString 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it on your talk page. Good luck! —LactoseTI^T 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for letting me use your code. I picked up on the language quickly. Theres a history of changes on my talk page ^^ =KiteString= 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Great; I'm glad to hear it helped. Nice signature! —LactoseTI^T 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask first before you delete other's talk page

Who gave you the right to delete contents in my page? 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" and I did so. Is it still not public? Bring me another reference that it is copyright protected. Don't emphasize the latter part. I'll revert when you don't bring the sources. Ginnre 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's copyrighted text. The clause you are taking there is out of context, and is immediately followed by the word "but." I left a full response on your talk page. Settle for linking to it, and you can still get your point across. —LactoseTI^T 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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. As you know, the link contains nothing except the title. Ginnre 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Short answer: now that we've established it is copyrighted text, you should refrain from posting it. Talk about it all you like, and include a link. —LactoseTI^T 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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 05:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not being sarcastic. Good friend100 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

2nch.net

Thanks for your friendly advice. I'll just delete it. (Wikimachine 02:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Stop annoying

I repeatedly asked you to answer my question before you take action. Nonetheless you ignord my request and intepreted only in your way and put warning on my page. I'm just surprised how you become a patroller while you act this way. That 2ch page is copyright protected is your interpetation only. You don't understand what 自由 means? To use the text in 2ch.net is 自由 in the first place. Even though they were copyrighted, they can be used as fair use as they said it is 自由 to use it in the first place. What's problem with you? I don't understand why are you so strict on my usage of that page up to the point of paranoia. I ask you again to remove your warning as your repeated attempt to remove the page is unjustified. Ginnre 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, again. All questions (I believe) were repeatedly answered. In short, 自由 is followed by "but," where they explain how the work is protected. Link to it, and explain how you feel about it. You don't need to infringe on it on top of that. —LactoseTI^T 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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. Simple comparison of your listing of copyright related images will show that obviously. I ask you to step back and remain silent, rather than attacking so many Korea-related articles. It doesn't help anything. I don't understand how you become a patroller. I don't think you behave with good faith. Evidences are plenty. Ginnre 04:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I give this barnstar to LactoseTI for his endless input and contributions on Korea/Japan related articles. =KiteString= 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ALthough your viewpoints are different from mine, I respect you as a dilligent editor who is able to keep his temper well on talk pages and give help on miscellaneous matters as well. =KiteString= 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Korea

There are a few users fighting between two versions of the Korea article, both of which have some severe POV problems. I'm not sure why you chose to join the edit war in favor of one of them here; in many ways the other one was less problematic. This version actively tries to justify or downplay anything negative about the Japanese occupation of Korea, even to the point of making the rather severely POV judgement call that Korea was better off under Japanese control. Also, I'm a bit disappointed that in this edit war, the editor pushing Korean POV has been repeatedly warned and even temporarily blocked, without any apparent recognition that the version he's been reverting is (at least) equally bad. --Reuben 15:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the version I reverted to had equally problematic issues; basically the reason I reverted it was that I had recognized the IP of the user making the changes as a POV pusher and just looked at the diff. I was hoping someone else would catch it if there had been more serious things at play (which seems to be the case)--sorry, I was too much in a rush this morning to check myself. Did you get a chance to set it straight? —LactoseTI^T 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi LactoseTI, Sorry if I jumped on you a bit too strongly for this; the bit about Syngman Rhee vs. Japanese rule struck me the wrong way. I made one pass through to clean some things up, but obviously there's still lots of room for improvement. And yes, the IP user was definitely pushing POV, but maybe he could be convinced to accept a more neutral version. --Reuben 16:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your editing of Baekje may be wrong. And firstly survery the current research about Gija joseon. it will help you.

=\

What do you mean by unconfirmed website?

The website is for Korean students to learn about Korean history (even I used to use it), and it is a nice educational site.

None of the other editors disagree with my uploads, I don't understand why these pictures are such a pain to you and others.

First, you want a copyright, so I posted a copyright.

Then you wanted a site from where I got the image, so I posted that.

And now, theres a tag up there saying that this image is "from an unconfirmed website".

So then, if I post a "confirmed website" what will you pick on then?

The copyright is invalid because it isn't a "historical battle" because it was drawn by the Koreans so its POV?

Or lets say the image is invalid because the confirmed website is Korean so that makes it POV?

What other ways are there to curb the images? Throw them all at me at once so I can work my way through them at once, instead of throwing a roadblock one at a time. Good friend100 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no point of view issue here. Those specific images from that same site were removed before due to similar issues. The websites you grabbed them from are not the creators of the images, and don't have information about the original source or copyright status (that I could see). This kind of copyrighted painting or drawing is not allowed. See the fair use page (an example of things that are not fair use being, "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war.") Images help the articles, but it's important to get free ones. —LactoseTI^T 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Violation

Pleae don't vandalize good faith edits and leave fradulent warnings on my talk page. I'm more than willing to reasonably discuss and compromise but not if you're going to lie or make fraudulent claims.melonbarmonster 21:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a policy against removing cited sources--there are several more on the Atakebune page. I suppose you left a "vandalism" note on my page in response to the one left on yours. Yours was left because you removed cited material and violated the 3RR rule (again). Please provide a reason why any of my changes were vandalism, or I suppose it's prudent to remove this warning (what I tend to do with vandals who do the tit-for-tat warning thing). —LactoseTI^T 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already proved that I didn't remove cited sources and you've already admitted to it. It is incredible that you're repeating this accusation. Your edits and comments have nothing to do with the ensuing discussion or the sources cited. You've made disruptive edits without explanation repeatedly even after my many requests for additional references and responses. Rather than engage in a civil discussion in the talk page of the article you left me a warning for deleting your "references" when no "reference" existed.

As for the first iron clad ship issue, please provide verifiable references so that the rest of us can check it out.melonbarmonster 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I repeatedly said, see the Atakebune page for more references (and even a few snippets of the text). I could say more, but it seems you keep missing that part... —LactoseTI^T 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of where you removed a cited source [[6]]. We are allowed to use books on wikipedia (this is just one of several of the sources on Atakebune. —LactoseTI^T 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what are you thinking???? The Boxer reference is also in my version of the edit in the link you provided!!!

Perhaps you forgot--you removed that reference a few minutes later (link fixed). —LactoseTI^T 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, books are fine but if you're genuinely using that book as a source you should also be able to give us some quotes or portions of the text or explanation of the pertinent parts of the book that supports the referenced text of this wiki article. All I'm asking is for you to share your sources. As for ATekebune, there's conflicting sources about which ship was the first iron clad. Even the turtle ship goes back to the 15th century.melonbarmonster 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You yourself removed much text, and changed it to suggest that Admiral Lee's later designed ship was the earliest, saying there was no controversy. There are ample references to help you read about the earlier ships. Again, see the Atakebune page for an ample sourced discussion on this topic. —LactoseTI^T 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyperlinks to other wiki articles are not sufficient for references. Please familiarize yourself with WP:A and WP:V. If you want to make edits then YOU'RE the one with the obligation to provide verifiable references. Copying other people's citations is not enough! In any case, turtle ships were used by Chosun as far back as the 15th century.melonbarmonster 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course; I gave one reference and linked to more. One is more than enough. Read the article about turtle ships--there is much information there. For example, while it is true that there are two generations of them, they were quite different. —LactoseTI^T 23:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So where's the references? I tracked down your reference. It just quotes Portugese comments about the Japanese ship. It says nothing about it being the first iron clad ship. Turtle ship was known as early as 15th century.melonbarmonster 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"We are allowed to use books on wikipedia"

Then what is with deleting some points I wrote down in the Pros/Cons section? I clearly gave a reference and I am having the impression that it is being rejected and deleted for no clear reason by the editors who support that the turtle ship never had any iron on it. Good friend100 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I made any such deletions. I remember thinking that it could use a bit of organizational overhaul, but I don't think I changed it at all... —LactoseTI^T 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the section in question, I think the deletion was probably made because the third bullet (about the drawing) is in some ways duplicating of the description of the first bullet (where the point is make that while the hexagonal pattern is there, the drawing differs in some ways from the account in the records, which casts a bit of doubt on the accuracy of the picture). In any case, I don't think I edited that section. —LactoseTI^T 03:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't necessarily pointing at you, my bad. Good friend100 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SO WHERE'S THE REFERENCE THAT SAYS IRON CLADDING IS CONTROVERSIAL???melonbarmonster 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Content Dispute on Turtle Ship Article

I've read everything in the talk page and have checked all the sources. What evidence do you have that turtle ship may not have had iron cladding? What reference, article are you using to claim this? I've tracked down ALL the references and NO reference states this. You're violating WP:A by persisting in your reverts. Give me a decent, reasonable response if you can.melonbarmonster 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

At best, it's a content dispute (you want to use a 11th grader's history report on his website as a source, and that really doesn't fly. —LactoseTI^T 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop pretending this is about some website report. LOL. That's your disagreement with a different editor. SO WHAT SOURCE DO YOU HAVE FOR CLAIMING THERE WAS NO IRON CLADDING????melonbarmonster 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep adding back several unsourced statements, and including this report as a reference. Please look before you leap. —LactoseTI^T 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a final call for references and sources. So if you have anything that mentions any controversy or doubts about iron cladding, please give them. My guess is that you have none and that you were being deceitful and disruptive but you're welcome to prove me wrong by providing some references.melonbarmonster 19:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Warning

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. —melonbarmonster 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could please describe to what you are referring, I'd be more than happy to take a look. Maybe it has something to do with me leaving the same message on your page for edits like this? —LactoseTI^T 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith (again)

Making edits like this are contrary to good faith. Then lying to me and other editors about having provided references doesn't foster good faith.—melonbarmonster 05:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to move my comments to a section where I don't intend to put them (or create a section, moving them to that) and I won't need to move them back. —LactoseTI^T 05:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't move your comments. I made edits to my comments. You are vandalizing my request for references with your disruptive and harassing behavior.melonbarmonster 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism Warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia as you did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATurtle_ship&diff=128849617&oldid=128849427, you will be blocked from editing.melonbarmonster 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't relocate my comments, and I won't undo your relocation. —LactoseTI^T 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I edited my own post and in a section which I started. It seems your really bending over backwards and squirming to drag this out when all you had to do is come up with even a single reference of your own.melonbarmonster 06:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After I provided several references, you decided to move my comments to a section that you created (that's what happens when you insert a section break right before someone's comments). —LactoseTI^T 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You provided no references and you know it. You tried to delete Turnbull. You fraudulently referenced Park. And you think by talking about your own interpretations on facts from these sources that your "provided several references"??? You would have lost your job, failed your class for something like this in the real world btw. And yet you claim you provided "several" references! Holy moly, what incredible dishonesty. Dude, come on, let's at least try to keep a modicum of self-respect in our dialogue.melonbarmonster 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I discussed, I was not deleting Turnbull's reference, I was deleting the repeated information. As Turnbull was discussing the source mentioned in the first incarnation, it itself was not necessary--do we continually add more and more sources in the chain? Dr. X refers to Turnbull, and Turnbull refers to source A. Source A says, "whatever." Those are not three items, they are one.

If you thought Park was fraudulently referenced, you clearly don't know what he was saying. Again, I ask you to stop with the personal attacks. —LactoseTI^T 07:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good grief.melonbarmonster 07:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really a professor?

Hey LactoseTI. Would you like to confirm your identity as a professor? If not, nothing to worry about. Just wondering. (Wikimachine 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Re. Dokdo

Hello Lactose and thank you for contacting me. The closure of that move proposal was a tough decision and I was expecting some complaints. I usually determine consensus when at least 70-75% of the participants share a common stance. Of course, this is not a strict rule as I also ponder the arguments of both sides. In this discussion, I found reasonable arguments on both sides, and not enough agreement to deem it a consensus to move. Best regards, Húsönd 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the canvass, but it seems to have been taken care of by users who effectively identified meatpuppets. I appreciate your suggestion for further time for this discussion, but I'll have to decline. This proposal had already gone into WP:RM's backlog and couldn't stay there for much longer. My closure has no prejudice against new proposals on the same matter to be brought to the talk page for fresh discussions. As for NPOV, many factors are determining it in this situation. Like it or not, the Korean occupation has made the rocks to be better known worldwide as "Dokdo". Wikipedia is not a political entity, referring to the rocks as "Dokdo" here doesn't bring any kind of international recognition. I am aware that "Liancourt Rocks" is more neutral, but it's simply falling into disuse. Above all, this is an encyclopedia and articles should be named according to the most commonly used terminology. If, as you suggest, "someone knocks the five temporary guards standing on it off tomorrow", then there'd likely be another discussion about this matter and maybe there would be consensus to move, I don't know. What I know is that when closing discussions on Wikipedia, instead of focusing on any non-existent political repercussions, I rather focus on consensus or the lack of it. Regards, Húsönd 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me again and presenting sound arguments against my decision. I'll make an exhaustive review of my closure tomorrow and will naturally have in regard the points you brought up (I'm not doing that now because I'm sleepy and will just do some vandalfight before heading to bed). After my review I shall either move to Liancourt Rocks, or relist, or request a second opinion by one or more admins. I appreciate your concerns. On a related note, I did not relist this proposal on WP:RM because after a quick look I didn't think that any consensus would be reached by relisting this particular proposal. Most proposals that are relisted are the ones that had too little participation for any consensus to be determined. Regards, Húsönd 02:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Lactose. I have reviewed my closure of the move proposal and decided to overturn and move to Liancourt Rocks. Once again thanks for your input. Best regards, Húsönd 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo canvassing

I'm sorry to say it, but the article you found is actually a far more egregious case of canvassing than the Chosun Ilbo article (that article at least presented itself as a simple account of the dispute). This one contains sentences like "please take an interest" and "the day after tomorrow will be too late." It also includes the usual stock defense for meatpuppetry and the like, namely "the Chinese and Japanese are doing it already." -- Visviva 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert

" I doubt that the article will be moved back, but feel free to present information about meat/sockpuppeting on the Liancourt Rocks side" Husond said, and you aren't going to stop me. Also see user talk:Philip Baird Shearer. (Wikimachine 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You aren't trying to present evidence on the meatpuppet/sockpuppet on the Liancourt Rocks side, you're trying to fiddle with every little bit about the poll in general. Even if the Liancourt Rocks people were in the minority, they could still win because their arguments were based on policy, and their votes had valid rationales. —LactoseTI^T 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to present a data. However, I decided to present personal data first, and then the statistics. (Wikimachine 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

This is precisely why the RM conditions were changed so that it isn't by a set numerical percentage (although we did meet that, too). These long drawn out battles really don't matter, the rationales do. —LactoseTI^T 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your good faith?

Hi LactoseIT, recently I found your edit [7], which I think problematic. You care about deleting Imjin war but not care about correcting Hideyoshi's ... to Japanese ...? I know Hideyoushi's is your pet name but the wars were titled Japanese invasions of Korea as you all too well know. You quite frequently do so called better wording but if you're not interested to be impartial doing so it is dangerous, especially you act as police here (as you advertise on your main page). If you're so sloppy on your pet names but strictly to others, usually Korea originated or related, your good faith is questioned and your edits are, too. Be more watchful next time. Ginnre 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment Warning

Please stop wikistalking and shadowing my edits. If you continue, you will be reported and blocked from editing Wikipedia. melonbarmonster 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please continue to contribute, but don't remove sources or otherwise undo other editors' hard work and research. Fixing mistakes should not discourage you from editing, and doesn't constitute harassment. If you are unclear on this, I encourage you to follow through with your "report." Perhaps it would help the situation if you heard this from another person as well. —LactoseTI^T 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have shadowed my edits and instigating revert wars in articles you've never contributed in. You've been warned per WP:HAR. melonbarmonster 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not shadowing you. Again, please go ahead and report to get another opinion. —LactoseTI^T 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

About 3RR

I seriously feel that you are going way too far with this. I haven't done anything blatently wrong and for the latest report you have filed against me, its not even a true violation. I mentioned in the noticeboard that none of this edits were in bad faith and I had good enough reason to do so. Responding to Komdori, I started a new thread to discuss about the map.

Stop doing this to me, I've had enough of getting blocked and I feel that you are doing this only in your own amusement of getting me blocked because you are starting to pick on every little edit that I'm doing. It makes me angry that you have this negative attitude towards me. STOP IT.

I've had enough of you and your sarcastic comments and attitude towards me, and I'm not going to put up with this anymore. Please stop.

Have a nice day, Lactose. Good friend100 03:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response here. —LactoseTI^T 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

compromise

Thank you for your excellent compromise. I strongly disagree with you about Post-Docs, but that point is moot now. I regret that my edit summaries are sometimes snarky. I suspect that I upset you ("you're dead wrong") but that was not my purpose or intention. Happy editing ^^ Mumun 無文 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose that did ruffle my feathers a bit, but no big deal. I appreciate you taking the time to leave the note to clarify. —LactoseTI^T 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

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

Stop

Stop following me all over wikipedia Every single edit I do, you go and revert it. Why don't you bury yourself in editing Japan-related articles instead of being anti-Korean in all your edits on Korean-related articles. Good friend100 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

You're one of the parties for this arbitration case that I'm filing. The link to the arbitration is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests. (Wikimachine 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

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 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War's result

Hello, I noticed your edit in the article, and I think that it is the best result to this. To simply write "Japanese unconditional surrender" misguides readers. The fact is that Japan did not surrender unconditionally to Allies because of China alone, but due to combined Allied effort which China was part of.

I feel that Mibovosky doesn't agree with this and he can cause some trouble. His argument that "this is about a war between CHINA and japan" is not valid at all, as the Second Sino-Japanese War became part of the combined Allied effort in Asia-Pacific to defeat Japan. I do not deny China's contribution to victory over Japan, not at all - but by simply writing "Japanese unconditional surrender" is misguiding as the keyword Allies is not mentioned (for example, how much of Japan's merchant navy did China destroy, or how much of the Imperial Japanese Navy did China destroy? The fact that countries other than China essentially defeated these, which in turn was important part of Japan's way to defeat agains't the Allies, is reason enough to mention the Allies). Perhaps we can together do something about this?

The "Japanese unconditional surrender" version is not helped by the fact that China is the only Allied combatant listed, (for one) even though the United States operated an air fleet in China against the Japanese (14th Air Force). Regards, --Kurt Leyman 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, but in case someone else is following along here:

Thanks for your note. Your comments reflect the same thinking I had behind the change; the simple addition of the clause "to the Allies" puts everything in context, bringing everything together, and I believe sums up the result much better. There might be other, better solutions, but it's hard to be much more brief and still get the detail in there.

I agree that Mibovosky's assessment is too simplistic, making it sound like an isolated war between the two parties of Japan and China resulting in Japan's unconditional surrender. The talk page seems to reflect others sharing the same concern. Surely most people these days still have a peripheral knowledge of the second world war, but the summary box taken on its own without the clause could certainly be confusing. I will keep an eye on the article in case Mibovosky or others take issue with it. —LactoseTI^T 06:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was right - he would not agree with the edits (including the inclusion of the United States as one of the combatants, which she was from July 1942). Take a look at the article's recent history. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We really need to do something about this. He continously reverts my legimate edits and accuses me of "americentrism". He says "US contributions in china are part of the chinese" The United States' involvement in China was part of Chinese war effort until July 1942 as the Flying Tigers was not official United States military unit. After that official United States Army Air Forces unit, 23rd Fighter Group took over the Flying Tigers role. In March 1943 this was increased to 14th Air Force. This is explained in notes right below the infobox, yet her persists.

Not only that, none of his excuses explain why he removed the Japanese puppet states of Manchukuo, Mengjiang and the Wang Jingwei Government from the infobox on Japan's side. They provided significant number of troops to support Japanese (an example of similiar case; Croatia and Slovakia are listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29 article's infobox) We have to do something about this. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a solution, use the talk page. Don't be blaming me for your failure to communicate. Also, if you have an issue with me and my edits, you should confront me instead of running to someone else for support. Миборовский 07:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Don't be blaming me for your failure to communicate." Spare me from hypocrisy. You are ignoring facts - the United States' involvement in the war as combatant per official United States military units, troops provided by Wang Jingwei Government along with Mengjiang and Manchukuo to support Japanese ect. "if you have an issue with me and my edits, you should confront me instead of running to someone else for support" I do not have issues with anyone and this particular was worried about the same thing as I am. --Kurt Leyman 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When there is a content dispute, the correct thing to do is take it to the talk page and work it out there, instead of reverting. So far you have been unresponsive on the talk page despite my numerous attempt to communicate with you in anticipation of working something out there, even going as far as deleting messages I left on your talk page, twice. I have made my rationale sufficiently clear on the talk page, if you disagree with it, please use the talk page and we can talk about it there. If you don't want to sort it out like civilized people, we can always see who can bring more buddies to revert-war. Your call. Миборовский 23:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't edit there often (I should), the page would clearly be considered an edit war at times, and Миборовский it's by far not Kurt who's doing all of the reverting. It's especially troubling when the revert is against sourced material; it is not at all hard to find some sources stating that the US is a combatant in that conflict, and I'm sure you know this--the way to get to a good compromise is not to assert something outrageous and then work inward. Try a little WP:GF and it will take you far. We all want the article to be the best it can be. —LactoseTI^T 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now provided a source for the United States' involvement in the war and the source which gives number of Chinese troops fighting for Japanese (which has been there all the time, yet he still chose to remove) only supports the inclusion of Wang Jingwei Government, Mengjiang and Manchukuo. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. No one should be removing well-sourced material intentionally. I'm still watching the article; it's one I hope to contribute more substantially to in the near future. —LactoseTI^T 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were wrong - he did it again using "justification": "undue weight given to US involvement. 14th air force accounts for less than 0.5% of total strength by number". I suggest that he takes a look at Continuation War article. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sourcing" is not a panacea. Sourced information that are irrelevant should be removed nevertheless. I can also provide sources that "prove" the US was actively hampering the Chinese war effort and provide sources that "prove" the vast majority of collaborator forces in fact defected with the full knowledge and consent of Chinese GHQ and were working for the Nationalists. Миборовский 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sourced information that are irrelevant should be removed nevertheless." PoV. "American airmen in China destroyed and damaged more than 4,000 Japanese aircraft during the war. They also sank more than a million tons of shipping and destroyed hundreds of locomotives, trucks, and bridges while helping to defeat the Japanese in China" Your "americentrism" doesn't help you. --Kurt Leyman 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A word to both of you--feel free to talk here as much as you like, that's fine with me (I'd rather not get the article locked if possible). I'll try to archive a bit of this to get things cleared up. Miborovsky: it's true that irrelevant things need to be removed, but that doesn't mean we can't at least say that the US was a combatant, does it? If 90% of the article was about how the US involvement, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but as it is I find it hard to consider the mere mention of the fact that the Americans fought in the conflict as undue weight... —LactoseTI^T 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, multiply that by five hundred and that's the number of locomotives, trucks and bridges that the CHINESE destroyed. You need to grasp a sense of scale. The contributions of one group of airmen in China is insignificant compared to the collective war effort. How many US airmen were in China? Is 25,000 a good guesstimate? Well that's 0.5% of the manpower that China put in. If you want to put two things side by side, they have to be at least on roughly the same level. The amount of manpower, effort and contributions that China and the US put in to prosecute the Second Sino-Japanese War is simply not comparable. (This is an excellent start, shall we move to the talk page now? We're getting somewhere at last.)

To LactoseTI: I'm not opposed to mentioning US involvement where it deserves mention. But putting it in the infobox as if US contributions are on par with Chinese contributions is undue weight. Миборовский 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"multiply that by five hundred and that's the number of locomotives, trucks and bridges that the CHINESE destroyed" I have never claimed the opposite. "If you want to put two things side by side, they have to be at least on roughly the same level" PoV, there is no such policy. The information stands. There are several wars and battles (which happen to have articles in Wikipedia too) in which countries other the main combatants were involved but played much smaller role than the primary combatants, yet they are still listed. That is called factuality. "The amount of manpower, effort and contributions that China and the US put in to prosecute the Second Sino-Japanese War is simply not comparable." And who has said the opposite? No one. "putting it in the infobox as if US contributions are on par with Chinese contributions is undue weight" Nothing suggests such - there is a very good reason for notes below the infobox, and the rest is PoV. There is no policy which would demand a country which was involved in war/battle to have contributed as much to it as the other combatant/s so that it can be listed in infobox. --Kurt Leyman 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it not implied? An infobox is meant as a concise summary, not an exhaustive list of participants, which, if everyone involved in fighting in China is listed, would also include the USSR, UK, Italy, Nazi Germany (on China's side, even) and others. Listing the US in the infobox implies it contributed enough in the war to be listed alongside China and Japan, which you have conceded is not the case. And, I think I have to remind you, the dispute started with you insisting on "Japanese surrender to the Allies", and the 14th Air Force and assorted miscellany is merely something you later added to argue for your point of view. --Миборовский 01:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Is it not implied?" No, nothing suggests that the United States contributed as much as China. "Listing the US in the infobox implies it contributed enough in the war to be listed alongside China" Which she did - over one million tons of Japanese shipping sunk (20% of what American submarines sank during the entire war) and more than 4,000 Japanese aircraft destroyed and damaged among other achievements are hardly insignificant achievements from this air force. "which you have conceded is not the case." No, I have only said that the United States did not contribute as much to the war as China as no policy requires such despite what you suggest in your PoV. And if you want to include the countries you mentioned then go ahead. Be sure to provide cituations and notes. --Kurt Leyman 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

horrible grammer

speaking of grammer, something went wrong at Kimchi in my edits

and I can't find it. Its about the sentence saying that Kimchi causes cancer. You can fix that.

And I'm a native speaker, I was born in the US. Simply because I'm Korean doesn't mean that I'm labeled off as a non-native. Speaking of natives, you might as well leave a comment to Opp2 about ravaging Liancourt Rocks as he's sweating it out trying to explain how the rocks aren't Korean with non-native english. Good friend100 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert Warring

Lactose, we can disagree but please don't engage in revert warring. Thanks.melonbarmonster 00:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me--instead of removing sourced statements, in the face of many editors contesting your changes, please at least try to talk instead. —LactoseTI^T 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Korean cuisine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Walton^One 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further note: You were reported to the administrators' noticeboard for violating the three-revert rule. I won't block you at this time, because I can see that you've made a good-faith attempt to discuss these issues on the talk page, and it doesn't look like you're solely to blame for this content dispute. However, I strongly recommend that you stop edit-warring and, if necessary, seek dispute resolution to resolve the issues with the page. Walton^One 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt infobox

Is there a way of indicating that the Japanese "administration" over the Liancourt rocks extend to a claim to administrative rights only? The way it is now it's no wonder that Korean editors get upset over it (esp. with Japan being mentioned first) Phonemonkey 17:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We could always subst the box and edit accordingly, but it's nice to stick with the template if possible. It's really a misunderstanding of terminology because it's not even referring to administrative rights, more just a reflection of how they classify it internally. This whole mix up came about (I believe) because someone put "Korea" without filling the template out completely, and some editors seemed to infer it meant ownership. It is never just supposed to be a country name, it's supposed to show the administrative chain in a short summary list. Kind of like saying "Administrative Categorization," even though that would be a bit of a mouthful. —LactoseTI^T 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No it ain't. This is a bald example of JPOV editors attempting to put Japan at an equal political level with South Korea. The initial argument was that Japan "did paperwork" on the islets. Quite ridiculous. Good friend100 17:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Lactose. What concerns me is that to the casual visitor to the article, the infobox gives the impression that the two countries happily jointly administer the island (if only!). And while the heading "administration" is perfectly acceptable in the case of a normal location with one undisputed owner, I have my doubts about its use in this case where one of the two administrative chains is only theoretical. I was just wondering if there is a way around this. Phonemonkey 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked...

Sigh. I've blocked both Wikimachine and you for edit-warring on those Korean "terrorist" pages, An Jung-geun and Yoon Bong-Gil. Wikimachine clearly broke 3RR, you stayed just below it, but it was still clearly disruptive edit-warring and you should know better than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[8] link showing my commitment not to continue reverting on that article. {unblock|I realized the reverts were going nowhere, though I thought I was reintroducing sourced content and made comments to this effect. When it became clear the other user was edit warring, I stopped--before being blocked, already declaring my intent not to participate in this reverting (see the above diff). Perhaps you had missed my saying this, I'm not sure. I would appreciate being unblocked, as I clearly had no intention to continue the edit warring and blocks shouldn't be used punitively. As a show of good faith, I will additionally not edit those articles for the next 24 hours (upon pain of immediate reblocking) if such a condition would help. I might also add my last edit regarding the disputed content was many hours ago; my recent edit was totally unrelated (and clearly uncontroversial) though perhaps you believed it was a revert since my name was there.}

Please wait as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, unblocking as per the above promise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When have Japanese boats entered Tokto/Takeshima waters?

You wrote on the Tokto/Takeshima discussion page that:

<< For the record, Japan actually does actively believe it physically administers it and treats the Koreans as "guests." They regularly exercise their "right" to enter the territorial waters and perform studies, surveys, do physical work, and so on. It is not simply paperwork. >>

I'm asking as a point of information, when has Japan recently entered the territorial waters of Tokto/Takeshima? Per several agreements, Japan and Korea enter each other's declared EECs, but that's not the same as territorial waters.

I'm not asking this as a form of argumentation, but out of genuine curiosity.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.254.68 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check the exact paths taken by the ships, though I believe there were several that did go close enough. However, even the EEZ activity is relevant here as it is, in fact, outside the current agreements of EEZ activity between Korea and Japan. For example, Japan scheduled follow-up surveys explicitly as responses to what she saw as Korea trespassing on her EEZ. In the other direction, Korea has also strongly protested Japanese actions solely because of EEZ "trespassing" (to which Japan replied that the territory was solely within her own EEZ). Clearly, then, these are not covered by the current EEZ agreements, and both sides are trying to use them as arguments for a display of sovereignty. —LactoseTI^T 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever check into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushibo (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

IHO did Not decide to only sea of japan use

• about sea of japan/east sea edit.

the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". <<?

actually, iho chief said,

"I encourage the three countries concerned to find a solution acceptable to all of them, taking into account any relevant solutions, or else to agree to differ and to report the outcome of these discussions to the next conference."

IHO did not decide to only 'sea of japan' naming use.

The IHO declined the name use both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan". They did not decide to only sea of japan name use.

1. IHO cheif said, "these discussions to the next conference."

2. Previous IHO's map delete that only "sea of japan" name use.

3. The latest meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization ended without any changes, but South Korea is happy because the head of the organization suggested the moniker “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached.[9]

4. so, IHO did not decide to exclusively "sea of japan" name use.

According to IHO's technical resolution,

It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche. [10] [11]

so, exclusively 'sea of japan name use' did not permited. "Sea of japan/ East sea"(same use) is right.

I correct from JPOV edit. also, i already discussed in this page.[12]Panelequal3 05:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks closed

The above arbitration case has closed, and Wikimachine (talk · contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. All parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Images without "source"

Now I get why you even added the "no source" tag on the Japanese maps because I didn't fully attention to the each captions on them. Images with only website info would not strictly fit to wiki standards. But the old maps are {{PD-old}}, {{PD-art}}, so if I or others find out compatible sources with the images on which you tagged, you couldn't object to my removing "no source tag" from them. Because original uploaders at such the websites might've uploaded scanned images, if I couldn't find exact matches to them, lower quality images with related descriptions at confirmed websites are usable like this. Image:Hachidou2.jpg. Take care. --Appletrees 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Turtle ships

Hello, I invite you to take part in the discussion on the supposed Iron Cladding of the turtle ships at Talk:Turtle ship#Pros and Cons (Part II, if you like). Unfortunately, user melanbarmonster has made some unilateral edits which make the iron cladding look like a fact. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion Related to Liancourt Rocks

An arbitrator has started a motion here which will change the current article probation of Liancourt Rocks into a discretionary sanction on all pages related to Liancourt Rocks. You are notified because you were a party to the original arbitration case. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi LactoseTI,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)