Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 17

message: # Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
# Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 and Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007
--Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves to date

message: Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?
I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.
*All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. If you have reasons to expect your edit will not be acceptable, don't make it. 
*Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should  be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).
*Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once.
*Blatant POV. Edits (like those sometimes made by hit-and-run IPs) which blatantly violate NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
*Edit summaries. All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that, although I believe the root of the issue is problems in the consensus building process on this talk page, and this is what needs to be addressed more than anything. Phonemonkey 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably got a point there. And I must commend you for setting a good example in your section (#Second paragraph) above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Future Perfect, I see very little need to "cooperate" on edits that have slipped in by their pushing instead of consensus. These were never agreed in consensus. (Wikimachine 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Oh, never mind. yes, please have those rouge rules in place, but please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Faking.2Fasserting_non-existent_consensus. The current version does not go with consensus. Also, I disagree nearly completely with your focus on me & Clownface @ Liancourt Rocks (it's a completely neutral version). Then clarify whether I should revert to the version prior to the dispute (b/c any new dispute must take place with the article in previous status) or if not what the rationale would be. (Wikimachine 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello administrator. At least, there is a naming convention about "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" by precursors, for avoiding edit war. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea). So if Wikipedians remember it, a little seed of unnecessary reverting will be removed... --Nightshadow28 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ROUGE|New rules of conduct]] 

message: :See previous discussion Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16#A map about treaty of San Francisco
::I did almost the same as the sentences from the SF treaty. Because hundreds of islands do not show in the SF treaty, they don't show in the map too.  "Currently Japanese territory; not mentioned in the SF treaty" doesn't say in the SF treaty. All of extra inducement information is deleted. Then you are the same as saying that the SF treaty should be reverted. Please give logical and constructive opinion.--Opp2 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  you should go over, um, If it wasn't mentioned in the treaty, how can it actually written in the treaty? be real dude. I think you are about to trip over yourself this way o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A map about treaty of San Francisco 

message: This article is written in the English language, and is part of the English Wikipedia, but many contributions are made by editors whose knowledge and understanding of that language is imperfect. Would there be any purpose in either of the following changes as a matter of policy: 
(a) deletion of all sections in Korean or Japanese characters (without regard to nationality or personal position of original editor), as these are not intelligible to English-speakers; although leaving quotations from either language which have been transliterated; and/or
(b) correction of grammar and spelling in the article to reflect standard English usage?
Or would either of these be a waste of time given the incessant edit wars in this article? It would be pointless, for example, to correct the syntax of a sentence which is then edit-warred again and again and again  on its substance.
Would regular editors like to vote on the adoption of either or both of these policies? Abstention might suggest a lack of willingness to engage with readers who are neither Japanese nor Korean. 
And a happy New Year to one and all from Scotland! ariwara (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the correction of the grammar. However, I cannot do. The name and the author and book of quotation should be leaving original language. There is a possibility that the original becomes uncertain if these are translated. --Opp2 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistently poor use of English in this article

message: Added to the Liancourt Rocks Page is the following interpretation of Korean Legal Scholar's view on the S.F Peace Treaty.
"..The rational interpretation of all the post-war instruments would lead to the conclusion that, unless any express decision provides otherwise, SCAPIN No.677 would take precedence. The Peace Treaty's mere omission of mentioning Tokdo as part of Korea's territory does not amount to the cession of Tokdo to Japan. And a fair interpretation would be that the islands mentioned in Article 2 of the Peace Treaty should be illustrative rather than enumerative given the large number of islands scattered around the Korean Peninsula..."
It comes from page 22 on the following article written by Korean legal expert Hee Kwon Park and Joeong In Rae.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-legal-doc5.pdf
Gettystein deleted it because of no citation, now it's cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this citation to the contents. --W/mint-Talk- 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Korea's view on San Francisco Peace Treaty.

message: *June 14, 1951: There is no change about article2 after this draft.
*September 8, 1951:Treaty of San Francisco was signed. (Text of treaty(No mention of the Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory and article 2) is fixed.)
*April 28, 1952:Treaty of San Francisco was effective.
*July 26, 1952: The United States protests to ROK based on the fixed text of treaty.
US knew that there was no mention of the Liancourt Rocks in the treaty but protested against ROK. It contradicts the recognition of the United States when bringing the description about ”no mention” at the end of the part. Do not disarrange the time series to emphasize "No mention" for Korean interpretation. In International Law, the text of treaty is fixed by the signature. --Opp2 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it is not exceptional to mention only the territory with the change in a legal position in the treaty. The territory of China and Japan did not mention in this treaty. Is there an eccentric scholar who says that Chinese and Japanese territory is unsettled according to this Treaty of Shimonoseki? Please stop induced description.--Opp2 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  time series about SF treaty 

message: Opp2 likes to say "blatant POV" to my edits and reverts, but honestly, Opp2's edits usually make no sense, incite confusion, or both.
Let's see, all I usually do is integrate this " Japanese scholer say" and "Korean scholar claim" into a single and fluid interpretation...
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't really think this "pov balance" and this ridiculous debate table of different interpretations can be acceptable in an encyclopedia. Don't controversial subjects as this usually go by consensus of documents and analysis, since none seem to effectively disprove another? otherwise, any attempt to correctly interpret would breach WP:OR. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't become a reason to press only Korean interpretation and delete Japanese interpretation. Your edit always emphasizes the Korean interpretation. This is POV.--Opp2 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  nah, thats what you think. It really makes no sense to say a Korean interpretation and Japanese interpretation. exactly who are what is it that makes it his or its interpretation? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! 

message: I'm not sure how to further proceed with this article. While I appreciate that several of you guys have been struggling hard to work constructively, I don't think the article is actually improving, and the editing is still in a state of perennial slow edit-warring. 
Much of this is apparently due to the poor English. Guys, I appreciate your efforts in working in a language that's not your native one (it isn't mine either), and I realise some of you have a good deal of knowledge to contribute, but you must understand that the article has become hardly readable. Please use some restraint in introducing new material if you're not sure of your English. Give it some time to consolidate so that some competent editors can tidy up the existing text so it begins to make some sense.
There are many things that editors with limited English skills can fruitfully do on Wikipedia. Negotiating NPOV on a politically sensitive article is really not one of them.
This goes especially to Opp2. You've introduced a hell of a lot of text, some of it knowledgeable, some of it apparently poorly sourced, tendentious and/or OR. The sheer volume and frequency of your edits is preventing this text from consolidating. You evidently have no consensus for the changes you make, but you keep editing insistently in a way that nobody can keep up with.
I'd prefer if we could resolve this on a voluntary basis so we don't need to go down the road into RfC's and Arbcom again. I appeal to Opp2 and other regulars of this page:
*Please stay away from editing the article, voluntarily, for at least two months.
*Give other, outside editors a chance to work on it in the meantime and consolidate it.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point it out concretely about poorly sourced or OR. Which edit is it? I admit the problem concerning English. However, I can not understand poor source and OR. I want you to point it out concretely if there is a problem. --Opp2 (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about my proposal was really that I would like these things to be discussed with somebody else, for a change, not with you. Therefore I'll take the answer into a new section below. Please let's keep this section for a discussion of process, not of content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please give this article a rest 

message: The history of this article is a disgrace and yet again we see it being raised at ANI. I seriously believe we are better off without the battles that this article provokes. I have therefore deleted it. Perhaps the combatants can seriously consider the impact of their squabbles on the wider project. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how deletion (as opposed to blanking, but that too) was pertinent to anything. I restored the undisputed intro and protected. El_C 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I left a note on your talk page explaining myself. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: You don't delete an article because there was edit warring!  The notice in place of the content of this article is unacceptable and astounding that administrators let it happen.  Protecting is fine, but someone needs to fix this state of the article and fast. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is being discussed at WP:ANI. As a breaching exercise to get some movement here, the deletion has been significantly more successful then I expected. In due course we will undelete the history. Please feel free to join in the discussion at ANI. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you kidding me? 

message: I temporarily left out some of the uncontroversial factual material about geography etc., simply because while the history was deleted I couldn't rewrite them without breaking GFDL. Now that the history is back (good call, probably) there'd be no problem reinstating those parts bit by bit.
As for the infobox, yes, leaving that out was intentional. The infobox was a perennial source of silly revert-warring over the mere ordering of the Japan- and Korea-related entries. Under these circumstances I thought not having a box at all would be better. These boxes don't serve much of a real purpose anyway, do they. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right! I came to this article a couple of weeks ago as a West European with a lay interest in the subject. And what a horrible mishmash it was, with its computer-translated English, and great chunks of Korean and Japanese that the editors couldn't even be bothered to Romanise. It was obviously going to be impossible ever to edit this into readable English, because the edit-warriors were at it over a dozen times a day, - so there was no prospect it could ever improve. I'm at least relieved, reading the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Liancourt_Rocks, to see that this conduct is truly exceptional in Wikipedia; and I agree that, interesting though this could be as a fuller article, the present stub is better than the unintelligible and illiterate saga it replaced. I take the point that deletion isn't a natural response to edit warring, but desperate cases require desperate remedies. The history replacement allows the original material, some of which is indeed interesting and relevant to be seen; seems good enough. ariwara (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That silly Japan-Korea KOrea- Japan war was annoying, but even if it was disputed, The infobox violates no Wikipedia convention. I demand that the infobox be put back. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the point.  Practically all the information it provided is given in the article; why therefore restore something that was the cause of a pointless edit-war? BLACKKITE 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks good, thanks. As for the box, I certainly have no problem with it, but Korean editors were forever unhappy when the Japanese entries were placed first, and vice versa. Plus, there used to be some silly debates about whether it was fair to characterise as "administration" whatever it is that Japan does with the islands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that so long as we are consistent in having symmetry, there should be few complaints. Also, I noted what we are doing here to the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motions#Liancourt Rocks article probation. El_C 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You underestimate how many things editors actually can and do complain about. ;-) But sure, leave it in for now. Nice thing the arbs reacted this quickly too. A fully voted motion just hours after the issue was raised on ANI is surely a first? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I think the Infobox is good as it is, 'cept the use of the word occupied somewhat annoys me. I think using such a word gives the reader a sense of violent intent and unlawful administration by the ROK. I suggest a different word, such as "current administration". Also, the silly "East Sea" sort of bothers me. I was under the impression that the official designation for those waters was "Sea of Japan". I couldn't give at all a care for the users that are angered by this petty issue, so i suggest that it be removed. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging stuff back 

message: There are currently two permanent residents on Dokdo:  
Dokdo was incorporated into Ulleung County in 1900, before Japan "incorporated" it in 1905.  
   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespeed (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes in article

message: Please correct the historical inaccuracy on the Liancourt Rocks page. The page regarding the history of the dispute reads as: "Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate.." 
The nation of Korea was physically "militarily occupied" by Japanese troops as of February 8th 1904 over a year before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. Japanese troops declared war on Russia and attacked Russian ships Variag and Korietz in Chemulpo (Incheon) on February 8th 1904. After that, Japanese troops landed in Incheon and marched into Seoul. After weeks of coercion and threats the Japan~Korea Protocol was signed "legally" allowing the Japanese to appropriate Korean land for military purposes. Here is wiki's page regarding the Japan~Korea Protocol signed February 23rd 1904. Check article four. It reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Signed_Between_Japan_and_Korea_of_1904
"The Imperial Government of Japan may, for the attainment of the above mentioned object, occupy when the circumstances require, such places as may be necessary for strategic reasons"
Here is a map from JACAR's national archives showing the position of Japanese military telegraph wires and watchtower outposts in Korea, China and Japan as of (38th year of Meiji) January 1905. (Before Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks) It has been labelled in English for the viewer. I can supply an unedited image of the original map upon request.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/overall-telegraph-map-1905-1.jpg
"Liancourt Rocks page should read. "Japan incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, about a year after it militarily occupied Korea during the Russo~Japanese War 1904~1905"
Please correct this historical inaccuracyClownface (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read your opinion yet, but frankly your editing style is hard to read. I just cleaned up a bit for readability and saving space. (you maybe be mad at me, but the admin's comment at ANI was right.-Appletrees (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Error on the Liancourt Rocks page

message: Occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea was in 1954, not in 1945. []Amazonfire (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask why all the writings of arduous work are cut short? (Its been 3 months since I was last on this article. I am very surprised that almost all of the article is deleted.)Veritasian (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Veritasian. Some weeks ago, after another complaint about edit warring and uncooperative editing on the admins noticeboard, several admins came to the conclusion that this article had become unmanageable. It was forever an object of edit wars, and at the same time it was being edited by people with very limited command of English. Both problems together had led to the article growing chaotically with lots of substandard quality material and little chance that it would ever be cleaned up. One admin spontaneously even deleted the whole article (well, that was rather, let's say, unconventional...) Anyway, it was then determined that it would be best to stub it back and subsequently keep it protected for a while. I wrote a short stub, and other people then merged a bit of the non-contentious passages from the old article back in. We'll let it slowly grow to a natural size again, but under tight admin supervision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea

message: The new Japanese topographic map (without Korean structures) based on satellite data can be found here:
* map (image only) 
* map (on GSI website)
The islets are in the upper right.
If the GSI (= 国土地理院) owns all rights to the map, and if all GSI data happens to be in the public domain, then somebody should perhaps crop the image and upload it to Commons. Wikipeditor (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that the map without any permission from South Korean government should" be included in Commons and here? The map with the Japanese name is far from NPOV and of course you know which country officially has the sovereignty. --Appletrees (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 国土地理院=Japanese, the map is Japanese government property as far as I can tell.  And I have no information indicating that their work has PD status. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might've mistaken my wording again. The new map without any permission from South Korean government who administers the islet is illegal. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't be ridiculous. Even if it was undisputed that the island is Korean (which you know just as well as we all is not the case), it wouldn't be "illegal" for another government to make a map of it. Korea doesn't own the geographical information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't say any ridiculous comment on the matter. The news was aired in South Korean media and people are disputing on Japanese "bold" move. And some of governmental officers said it is a violation to South Korean sovereignty. If you don't believe me, please google it and don't insult me. --   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There was never a snowball's chance in hell that we could have used this map.  It does belong to the Japanese government, and there's nothing illegal about making maps of places without permission of the owner of the land - no issues from South Korea.  And about the POV, if (and this is a big if) it were Wikipedia-usable it would have to have some free-license, which would ideally allow users here to edit them adding the proper Korean or English whatever.  Now that we got that out of the way, it's not PD and it can't be used. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sums it up pretty well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The map is highly unlikely released as PD-whatever, but Theanphibian, I don't think I could ever agree with your above comment. That is just another POV.--Appletrees (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map 

message: Can somebody adjust the coordinates so that the islands are back on the Eastern hemisphere, and not on the Western? Classical geographer (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. . We almost placed them under US sovereignty. I guess neither the Japanese nor the Koreans would have thanked us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: Fellow admins: since we can't keep this article protected forever, and we now have the article probation in place (WP:ARBLIANCOURT), what do you think, should we move to just semi? I would suggest that we should apply the probation bans to a couple of the "usual suspects" proactively: At least ,  and probably  have been so persistently disruptive that I think they needn't even try editing again; they'd certainly fall foul of the requirements and get banned within a week. Should we add more to this list? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fut.Perf. would you place a conspicuous note (something like big yellow sign) concerning the 1RR policy and probation rule on this article for precaution to any editor? This page is somewhat like a pilgrimage to the Holy Land for people from the both country. I really worry about a possible chaos after the page is unprotected. I think semi-protected status might be way better than just protected because the new probation policy seems very strict and some people might not log in to avoid their name being shown and banned from editing if they violate the policy. Many ip users take an advantage of their anonymousness and every ip address changes several times a day.--Appletrees (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to try semiprotection first per Appletrees. I certainly agree about Opp2 & Odst. I don't know enough about Cloiwnfaceto comment but ~I'm willing to defer to your knowledge. Spartaz Humbug! 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for unprotecting? 

message: Okay, I've reduced protection to semiprotection (which I suggest should be kept in place until further notice.) The old rules against edit-warring will remain in place. Moreover, I will strongly recommend to all the old combatants, but especially to User:Opp2 and User:Odst, to refrain from editing the article for at least the next few months. Every instance of disruptive editing – including not just edit-warring, but also all forms of blatantly tendentious, unbalanced editing, and reckless degrading the article's quality through bad English – will be met with immediate topic bans without further warning. Please see WP:ARBLIANCOURT. In addition, if I find anybody editing disruptively here who is also simultaneously involved in edit-warring on other Korean-Japanese disputed articles, they'll be fully blocked for long periods. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clownface should be refrained too.--Opp2 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just accept your block from editing this article? It takes more than one administrator to keep you and odst on hold, now your demanding a block on another user for a venue to attack him/her? Seriously, people have been telling you to stop with your crap, and you don't care at all until it takes an administrator to treat you and odst like little children for you to stop your nonsense. Or is because of your poor english? That too, if your english is so bad that you don't understand any of the rules, why are you here in the first place? Just accept and stop for a month. I haven't been here in a while, but I'm happy that this rotten piece of trash they called an article has been reduced to what we have now and I'm glad that we won't have you or odst starting up again. I'm glad about all this whole deal and whats happening to this article right now. Good friend100 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I just added some tag to the New Rule of Conduct thread in order to differentiate other threads and the policy. If anyone thinks it's color is not satisfying, feel free to change it. I couldn't help just making the rule in the box because many new editors fall out from the article without fully reading them. --Appletrees (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good. I think we need to rewrite the rule box to reflect the current situation. Fut Perf: do you have any thoughts? Is it time to archive and start the talk page fresh? Suggested rules of engagement below. Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Rule of Conduct box 

message: I visit it every few months just to see what's going on and was shocked this time.  A concise, succinct treatment of the subject with none of the previous substandard edit-war material that made disinterested parties cringe.  A kudos to the editors and admins who have brought this about.  Maybe it could become the shortest featured article ever.
I can't believe I'm suggesting this but I am a pessimist (note the permalink above).  If the urge to wage war in namespace recurs, what about creating an article like Liancourt Rocks territorial dispute à la Sea of Japan naming dispute to siphon the negative qi? —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is fantanstic looking!

message: "Image:Dokdo Map.png" neutral is not the file name. "Image:Liancourt Rocks Map.png" in the file name of a proposed rewrite.--222.158.49.76 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The file name of that image is a purely technical issue, it's not part of the article content. You are not supposed to even see it when reading the page. I see no issue there. People upload images under all sorts of more or less random names, that's life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Image:Liancourt Rocks Map.png" 

message: {editprotected}
As a part of a project to create articles for all communes of France, I have just created Liancourt, Oise. I would like to link to that from this article, for instance . Another option could be to move "Liancourt, Oise" to "Liancourt" (currently a redirect to "Liancourt Rocks", also protected) and create a dablink from there to Liancourt Rocks. Markussep Talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good job for creating the French town page. I'd say, since the town is actually "Liancourt", and the rocks are never called "Liancourt" alone but always "Liancourt Rocks", there should be no objection to having the town at the simple title. Let's have a quick check if there are links to it that need changed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All incoming links to Liancourt already were to the French village, not the islands. I've therefore redirected Liancourt to Liancourt, Oise as requested. If you want to move Liancourt, Oise to Liancourt simple (depends on what the preferred format is for French villages?), give me a call, you'll need an admin for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no other places with the same name, the preferred format is the simple name, without the department. Could you move it there? I'll add a dablink later. Thanks. Markussep Talk 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I don't actually see much of a need for a dablink on either side, personally. It doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! You're probably right, if people don't know whether they're rocks, islets or islands they can search for Liancourt anyway. I'll leave it then. Markussep Talk 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liancourt in France