Opp2

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. Welcome!

Hello, Opp2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Merovingian {T C @} 10:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines

It would be greatly appreciated if you could read the Wikipedia guidelines. It makes things easier for both of us. If you have any questions, feel free to contact any user for help. --DandanxD 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your claims in Dokdo article

Hi, it looks like you're pretty well versed with Japanese claim of the islets. For your balance I suggest that you read the link [1], [2], or in general, [3]. I also checked the link you referred many times [4]. It's well written with lots of original documents. However, he just ignored every single Korean claim as groundless and no evidence. It's simply not true and his website is misleading. So for your balance, please take a look at the link above. I hope you would continue your discussion after the reading. Thanks, Ginnre 09:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

He is an object of the jeer in Japan. He did not tell even the story of International Law in yahoo. Do not put the dirty one. --Opp2 10:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What an attitude! How does dirtiness or cleanliness have something to do with this discussion? Do you think you're clean enough to speak what you're saying? Then you have a serious problem that would disqualify you to discuss things here. Think why he is regarded as jeer in Japan. That's a problem of Japanese society, kind of いじめ, not allowing different voice, and it is not his problem. Do you understand?

Anyway, I don't care Half Moon's reputation in Japan. But those links are the only different voice in Japanese I can find. You need to know what both sides say before you speak in a public space such as here. At least Prof. Shin's interview is just an interpretation without his opinion so that has nothing to do with his reputation in Japan. Therefore, I strongly ask you again to read at least Prof. Shin's interview before you write again and again those tedius lawsuit-like things. Pay attention what words you use afterwards if you want to be regarded as a credible editor here. Ginnre 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been defeated on the discussion of International Law. He only runs away from International Law now. His excuse is "Wolves' International Law. " Do not put the dirty one. --Opp2 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying 'dirty'. That just erodes your credibility and sanity as an editor in WP. You may use the word 'dirty' in Japanese in Japanese sites in any sense you want to use it, but in english it is totally different. You'll get just ignored or laughed at. Watch out your expressions. This is final warning. Ginnre 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

半ケツなんか張り付けるな。何を言いたいのかさっぱりわからん。半ケツの捏造国際法でオナニーでもしておけ。--Opp2 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How rude you are. It is not 半ケツ, but 半月. You don't get what I say? Dirtiness or cleanliness has nothing to do with all these discussions, OK? Tell me how clean you are first before you say 半月 is dirty. Can you do that? Ginnre 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

俺が要求しているのは、いつ、何によって日本が「無主地先占」といったかである。半ケツの妄想解釈は要求してない。関係ないものを張り付けるな。人に要求する前に関係のない妄想コンテンツを消せ。--Opp2 06:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, then my request is show me how clean you are before you keep saying about 無主地先占. If Half moon's interpetation is 妄想, why can't your claim be 妄想 as well? With your attitude, you won't get anything. Treat others with respect if you want be treated that way. Ginnre 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is being written that it 占有 in an original source. You deceive by unrelated material. And You should study "appeal to ignorance (probatio diabolica)". I give priority to facts more than respect. --Opp2 06:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, you are not made even of the distinction between occupation(占領、占有) and occupation proprement dite(先占). Study International Law. --Opp2 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about what you say because your attitude is so arrogant. Ginnre 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you understand that you presented an unrelated source to the topic?--Opp2 06:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, present the material of Japanese Government that describes clearly, "無主地先占". It is an interpretation of neither 半ケツ nor the South Korea government. Do not put unrelated sight.--Opp2 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My demand based on policy of Wikipedia is very simple and easy. It is being written "Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a terra nullius incorporation in 1905." in a present article. When and in what did Japan say that? The format of the answer is as follows. Extra information is unnecessary. I verify it based on these three information.

1.DATE:(ex.December 26, 2006)

2.METHOD:(ex.letter to the South Korea government)

3.PUBLISHER:(ex.Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

It is not "occupation(占領、占有)" but "occupation proprement dite(無主地先占)". It isnot an interpretation by 半ケツ and Korea.Do not deceive unrelated material. --Opp2 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

interruption

Curiousity... Sorry if I interrupted the topic... How long have you been working with Dokdo? Did anything improve since the beginning of your contributions? What is your goal? Honestly, I don't care about the amount of time people spend to improve things in Wikipedia. However, you haven't improve a thing. I would not be writing this message if you are just making friendly or casual conversations. Please tell me, I don't understand your obsession with this article. Don't get me wrong; it is good to keep talking and making comments on particular articles that interest you. Let me put it this way, don't spend all of your time working on one article without making any improvements. --Kingj123 23:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the exclusion of the lie an improvement for you? Isn't even if it is a fact, it improvement? Is the reason inconvenient for Korea? I give priority to facts more than the lie and the artificial friendship. My purpose is a separation of the record and the interpretation and the insistence. As for the interpretation and the insistence, the two countries should be equal. Do you think that this is equal?[5]

• Blue character(2,825 words):Insistence of Korea and KoreaPOV interpretation
• Red character(500 words):Insistence of Japan and JapanPOV interpretation

In addition, an inconvenient record for the insistence of South Korea has been deleted. If the fact is excluded by the violence of the number, it is useless. The fact doesn't disappear. The edit wars will continue as long as this is not improved. And, the Korean will try to maintain the lie and Korea POV article by the violence of the number. If you do not have knowledge, you should not spend your time for the dokdo article.--User: Opp2 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not spending my time as much as you do on Dokdo article. Second, when I mean by "goal," I am talking about the exactly straightforward goal. Once, you mentioned about terra nullius and then all of the sudden you are talking of bamboo island... What is solved? Plus, there are some verbal assaults going on. The way you said that Korea will maintain the lie, becomes vague and too sketchy. Explain to me every single quotation from the article that "you think it is the lie" and why they are lie, and why they were by Koreans. --User:Kingj123 15:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can freely spend your time. However, it is useless your time if you want to insist without knowledge. I am only giving the time of the rebuttal about terra nullius. I did not start the topic about bamboo island. I do not permit provocation based on ignorance. Only, you cannot concrete rebuttal be done. It cannot be assumed the verbal assault. It is your ignorance. It is translated that it is not in an original source, and fabricates not saying. These are lies. I correct Koreans that it is KOREA POV people. Your comment doesn't have a concrete thing. This is useless time. --Opp2 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can prove many shameful verbal assaults you have intentionally posted on the talk page that has nothing to do with the language barriers, it is not an assumption, and it is not a misunderstanding. You also have nothing to test my knowledge through Wikipedia.

I am just commenting that we should have complete beginning, middle and end in a rebuttal. I want things solved, not the other way around, and it saves a lot of time. Honestly, this is a concrete and approperiate comment from my POV.--User:Kingj123 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning : Do Not Remove other edits without discussion

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

As your editing behaviour gets more and more rampant, (for example, [6]) I put a warning on your talk page. It is well known that the Japanese Scholars accede to the fact that, up to 1880, Ullungdo had been called Takeshima and Tokdo, Matsushima, by Japanese. Please read the article or you can find ample documents regarding this fact in Japanese. Ginnre 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please advise to yourself.--Opp2 06:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning : Please be civil

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks!

per your blunt reply, I put another warning. Ginnre 06:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. No one could present verifiability and reliable source about this description "and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Dokdo (Seok-do) since 1900 by the promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate." Thanks!--Opp2 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a new part in TALK PAGE of Dokdo article for you.--Opp2 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning : Please have a good faith

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

per your increasing problemtic reasoning or wording like your racist comment below;

'This your claim is not only you but also a typical insistence of Korean and the deception method.' Ginnre 18:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning : Personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

per 'As for your insistence, concreteness, accuracy, and logic are always insufficient.' Ginnre 00:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

Contributing to Wikipedia

If your sole purpose here is to simply revert the Dokdo article to a more pro-Japan status, I don't see how you're contributing to Wikipedia. Please think about how you can improve articles rather than promote your own political agenda in a single one. Your opinion can be appreciated and I am sure if you decide to stay and help, you can play a positive role. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

I'm responding to the first piece of text on your user page, "I am not good at English. Please point it out when the mistake is found in the grammar etc."

If you wish to make it grammatically correct, it should read, "My English is very poor. Please point out any mistakes in my grammar you find."

I hope this helps you. Mkdw^talk 10:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.--Opp2 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

petition

{blacklisted link removed} please sign the online petition to the Japanese government, regarding the comfort women issue. thanks. Odst 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Dokdo

Hello Opp2. Thank you for contacting me and for providing links for those pertinent documents. I am still analyzing the situation regarding this page move after your comment and Lactose's. At the moment, I seem to reject your rethoric. This is about a Wikipedia article, you appear to greatly exaggerate its impact when you state that my criteria is "very dangerous for the peace of the world". Wikipedia does not abid by the United Nations or its decisions, rather by consensus which often (but not always) coincides with U.N. decisions. See Taiwan ROC for instance. If we were to stick to the U.N.'s positions then one would read there that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, not a country. As for the control of the island, I'm just stating a fact, not implying by any means that that's the way it should be for one country to attain control of land and have such control thereby recognized as effective and legitimate (compare with Perejil). Now, when I close discussions on Wikipedia, I look for consensus. Didn't find it there, and no consensus defaults to no move. I'm still reviewing this tough closure though. Regards, Húsönd 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and once again thank you for the trouble of providing pertinent information for this issue. International law hasn't to interfere with encyclopedic content contained on Wikipedia. I'd like to stress that Wikipedia is not a political entity. You may well report that Korea's occupation of the rocks is illegal (and I agree), but when it comes to NPOV on Wikipedia let's not mix things. The article doesn't say that the rocks belong to Korea (that yes, would be blatant POV), it simply has a title that corresponds to a widely used term for the rocks (and which just happens to be the one used by the current occupier). It's no big deal really. In my view, it does not bring any recognition of Korean sovereignty over the rocks. I suggest a new discussion/move proposal to take place in the near future. Regards, Húsönd 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed my closure of the move proposal and decided to overturn and move to Liancourt Rocks. Thank you for your input. Best regards, Húsönd 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

no personal attacks

Please read the policy document Wikipedia:no personal attacks and guidelines Wikipedia:civil and Wikipedia:Etiquette and consider if you should change "toadface" to "Clownface" for you last posing to Talk:Liancourt Rocks --Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

?

What the hell were you doing at the liancourt rocks talk page? talking with yourself??? Odst 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You should say to Clownface--Opp2 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

o, i see. Odst 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

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 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

WORK

In 1951, during the Korean War, Lieutenant General John B. Coulter affiliated with the U.S. Army in Korea requested and received permission from South Korea to use the islets for military exercises. However in the negotiation on the bombing area between U.S. government and ROK, the U.S. government send a diplomatic document to Korea. The document is as follows.

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that' Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.' The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951."

States of August 10,1951 show the rusk documents. though it is unknown whether such permission was also requested of Japan.(This description contradicts official material of the USA.) Barely a year later,This description contradicts official material of the USA. The impression putting is done by presumption based on the poor evidence.) on July 26, 1952, the United States Government made a security agreement with Japan listing the island as a "facility of the Japanese Government" because U.S. government judged that Liancourt Rocks is Japanese territory by the rusk documents.The military exercises included bombing the islets similar to U.S. military uses of Vieques, in Puerto Rico and Kahoolawe, in the occupied Hawaiian Islands.(It is not important.)

In 1951, during the Korean War, Lieutenant General John B. Coulter affiliated with the U.S. Army in Korea requested and received permission from South Korea to use the islets for military exercises. However in the negotiation on the bombing area between U.S. government and ROK, the U.S. government send a diplomatic document to Korea. The document is as follows.

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that' Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.' The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951."[7]

States of August 10,1951 means the rusk documents. On July 26, 1952, the U.S. Government made a security agreement with Japan listing the island as a "facility of the Japanese Government" because she judged that Liancourt Rocks is Japanese territory by the rusk documents.

Upon Japan's defeat in World War II and occupation of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan by the Allies, the SCAP Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946 temporarily ceased Japan's administrative power over Liancourt Rocks. SCAPIN are instructions of occupation forces based on international law of war, and not treaties between subjects and Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

SUBJECT:Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas Japan.

1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.

3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaidō, Honshū, Kyūshū and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryūkyū (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding

(a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island), and Kuelpart (saishu or Cheju) Island,

(b) the Ryūkyū (nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Kanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands including the Daito (Ohigashi or Gagari) Islands Group, and Parace Vela (Okino-tori), Kercus (Kinami-tori) and Canges (Nakano-tori) Islands, and

(c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomazo) Islands Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

Islands mentioned in (a), other than the Liancourt rocks, were renounced by Japan at Treaty of San Francisco. Japanese sovereignty which is mentioned in (b) were eventually recovered. Those mentioned in (c), for the most part, remain in Russian occupation (though disputed by Japan). The instruction stated that "nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

A similar description is seen in Article 5 of SCAP Instruction #1033 that became the origin of the MacArthur line.

3. (b) Japanese vessels or personnel thereof will not approached closer than twelve (12) miles to Takeshima (37°15′ North Latitude, 131°53′ East Longitude) nor have any contact with said island.

5. The present authorization is not an expression of Allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area.

Japan is interpreted this instruction as the interim cessation of a sovereignty exercise because it is written as "cease exercising" in clause 1 and described clearly that it is unrelated to the territorrial artcle of Potsdam Declaration in clause 6.

South Korea is interpreting this instruction as a territorial order which excludes the Japanese sovereignty because it is being written as "Japan is defined" in clause 3.

The U.S. Department of State denied the Korean claim based on SCAPIN677 in a note to the American embassy in Korea.

The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, include Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No.1776 of September 16, 1947 desinated th islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and futher provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Island and certaion ports on Western Honsu.[8]

Several official memoranda recorded in the Foreign Relations of the United States between 1949 and 1951 appear to side with Japan's view and are occasionally described as "proof" of American support such as the Rusk documents.

Article 2: (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart [Jeju-do], Port Hamilton [Geomun-do], and Dagelet [Ulleung-do].

The CIA's Daily Digest of November 30, 1951, reported Japan decided to abandon the islets after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951. However, such document of Japanese Government has not been discovered.

Japan argues that Liancourt Rocks are not named because the parties accepted its claim over the islets. Korea responds that Article 2 is stated to be non-exclusive, silent on other Korean islets like Marado, and that the silence means SCAPIN 677's exclusion of the islets from Japanese territory remains in effect.

Hi Opp2. I thought I might point this out because you ask for people's advice in writing English. When you use the word "insistence" in phrases like "insistence of South Korea / Japan is....etc " I suggest phrases like "Japan's position is that.." or "S Korea states that.." "Japan argues that.." etc. - these sound more natural, and would make it smoother and easier to read. The word "insistence" is probably slightly different to what you think it means - it implies stubbornness, or pushiness on the part of whoever is doing the "insisting". Unless of course, you are using it knowingly and deliberately! Phonemonkey 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. However, because I might be baned, I might not be able to edit article. --Opp2 02:16, 12 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)

Terra nullius

I'm happy to avoid the above term, but could you please explain the difference, out of my personal interest? Phonemonkey 16:53, 23 September 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)

Blocked

I have blocked both you and Appletrees for 24h each because of the renewed revert-warring on Liancourt Rocks. Please review the warning I placed on the article talk page the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

!

stop these disruptive edits on liancourt. I understand your motives, but they make the article increasedly messy confusing... Your persistence is admirable, but seriously annoying... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked both Odst and you for 48 hours for your continuing edit warring on Liancourt Rocks. To be honest, I could not be bothered to count exactly which of both your edits qualify as reverts; what I can see is that the net result of this continuous aggressive editing is disruptive. This article needs a rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned from making edits while logged out

It has been established by checkuser that there has been a lot of editing through anonymous IPs that is most likely linked to you, and some few other accounts. While anonymous IP editing is not normally forbidden, it has led to a great amount of disruption in this case. You are therefore from now on banned from making any edits while logged out. You must always use this, and only this, named account. If any anonymous IP edits are found that can be linked to you by checkuser, you will be blocked for sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please give the opinion

The relation between imperial household and Baekjae of Japan is being discussed. I hope for your opinion. [9]--Princesunta (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your involvement at Liancourt Rocks

Opp2, last year your continued activity on Liancourt Rocks was among the strongest factors that made the editing of that article uncontrollable and led to the situation where we had to forcibly cut it down and lock it. I feel that your involvement on the talk page right now is leading towards the same result again. I know you mean well, but you are tendentious, you are here to push a certain opinion, you fill pages with huge amounts of almost unreadable text, and your English is poor. I'd strongly recommend you restrict your editing in this domain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

this edit that removes a disputed link without discussion breaches the terms of engagement for users on this page. If you would prefer not to be sanctioned for it I suggest you undo the removal and use the talk page to discuss the link. Also please try to keep any comments to less then 500 words for the convenience of other users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your massive blanking of Rusk documents

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Rusk documents, you will be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Parangdo is also related to the document and the article is still quite short, so don't blank the related info without seeking a consensus first. Besides, the controversies around the document is "cited info" and related while your edit summary does not say about it. Why? You don't own the article. The article is also linked to Liancourt Rocks, so if you keep doing so, hmmm, you know the consequence. Regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Liancourt Rocks

Opp2, your recent string of edits to Liancourt Rocks ([10]) have massively degraded the quality of the article through their extremely poor English, false use of tags and other issues. This, combined with the tendentious nature of your editing, is exactly the kind of edits that led to the article becoming insupportable last year. It's currently heading towards becoming the same kind of mess again. In a normal, healthy editing environment problems of faulty English could relatively easily be fixed, but the experience of last year shows that this is not the case in a highly contentious article like here. Your activities, then as now, mean a net damage to the quality of this and related articles.

I topic-banned two Korean contributors because of the same issue just the other day. Given your long history, and the warnings that were given last year, I see no alternative but to do the same with you.

I am therefore now topic-banning you from editing Liancourt Rocks and all related articles, for a period of 6 months.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 1 September 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} 23:19, 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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)