Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16

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:  New rules of conduct 

message: With all due respect to Japanese claims, Liancourt Rocks are officially a part of South Korea, while Japan is officially claiming Liancourt Rocks to be a part of Japan. Therefore, it is misleading for the claims of two countries to be treated equally. Tinned Butterfly (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Geez, not this again! Sneakernets (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Japanese claim and Korean claim treated equally? 

message: I see renewed revert-warring. Let me remind you all that the rules against uncooperative editing are still in place here. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too, as an uninvolved admin.  If I see any more warring, I will protect the pages.  Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewed warning 

message: This territory are occupied by Korea now.(Japanese do not occupy, just insist Korea is theirs.) So I think Korean is first and Japanese is second. (Sorry, my english writing is too short) BongGon (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Japanese is first? 

message: Opp why are you posting under the sockpuppet "forestfarmer" do you think the posters on this forum are stupid? Under what premise did you delete information from the Liancourt Rocks page? Clownface (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hi,I am Foretfarmer and not Opp2's Sockpuppet and I want you not to repeat it without there.what do you want me ? check user ?--Forestfarmer (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Clownface, please calm down. Don't criticize people with a mere conjecture. Why do you do so hysteric reaction since several documents were presented here? --W/mint-Talk- 09:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a document not disclosed still. However, I will postpone to add that for his mental condition.--Opp2 (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that he tries to exclude the one that it doesn't follow his opinion. The tool of exclusion is his favorite scholar. Only "Theory" of his favorite scholar is assumed to be a fact. Other scholars' theories are excluded. This method of him is the same also in the part of the history. And finally, he tries to exclude me who brings bad convenience information for him.--Opp2 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opp2 is posting under sockpuppets

message: Judicial precedent that Prof. Serita quoted is follows.
106 Qatar also rnaintains that the 1939 British decision is nuIl and
void because Qatar :never consented to the process. Qatar adds that there was bias on the part of the relevant officiais of the British Government and that the decisiori was not supported by reasons; it considers that procedural violations tainted not only the 1939 decision but also the "provisional" decision rendered in 1936 (see paragraph 54 above).
146 The Court accordingly concludes that the decision taken by the British Government on 11 July 1939 is binding on the Parties.
148 The conclusion thus reached by the Court on the basis of the British decision of 1939 makes it unnecessary for the Court to rule on the arguments of the Parties based on the existence of an original title, efy'ctivitas,and the applicability of the principle of uti possidetis,juris to the present case.
This is very interesting. The insistence on Qatar is the same as Vandyke. It only complains about the decision. Is the Allies ignorant? Even the discussion is not done. whether the decision of Britain was impartial or right. Is the history more important? As for the history, even the examination was not done. The decision of Britain is all. Do you believe Vandyke or ICJ?--Opp2 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prof. Vandyke V.S. Prof. Serita powered by ICJ 

message: <Present description>
"An had the Tokugawa Shogunate reconfirm in writing that the islands were Korean possessions."
Source of this description is here.
"Dai-nihon-chimei-jisho (Geographic Dictionary of Japan)" that devotes a special section to the topic. (SYC.) It records that the Edo shoganate banned Japanese from traveling to the Dokdo Islets in 1699.
Here is Dai-nihon-chimei-jisho.
Perhaps, I think that it indicates the following descriptions. (p9)
「鬱稜は本来我属島なり、文跡昭然、且彼に遠く此に近く、境界自ら別つ、貴国錯認して事を生ず」と諭す、我が幕府ついに屈して和興を為し、竹島渡海を禁制す、實に元禄十二年也。(The Korean government official said that "Ulleng belongs to our country .....and Your country(Japan) caused a disturbance." Shogunate yielded and the take a passage to Takeshima was prohibited. It was 1699.)
''
It is said, the government official in Korea is "Ulleung". Does this become Liancourt Rocks why? The Korean scholar is sure also to know Liancourt Rocks was called Matsushima in Japan at that time. Is such a cheap mistake done why? With this, it might be the same as the propaganda of the tabloid newspaper. This Shogunate's letter is recorded only as An's testimony. There is not a record that the government official of Chosun confirmed this letter either. Why "he had the reconfirm in writing"? Even Prof. Naito is concluding that general's letter is An's lie. When did it become true? I want you to present clear grounds.--Opp2 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was clarified that it was An's testimony.--Opp2 (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shogunat's writing of An incident 

message: Opp, what kind of B.S. legal blabber is this?
However Japanese scholars claim that Liancourt Rocks was left in Japan because it is not described in the SF treaty as an renouncement territory by Japan. If Liancourt Rocks away from Dagelet at 90kmCASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN by ICJ article64 p36 “The Court further recalls that it stated above that the words "the islets belonging thereto" can only be interpreted as referring to the small islands lying in the immediate vicinity of the three islands which are mentioned by name, and not to islands which are located at a distance of more than 40 nautical miles.”  is made a Korean territory, it is necessary to be described clearly in the treaty like Port Hamilton.芹田健太郎（Prof. Serita Kentaro）日本の領土p159 “もし、鬱陵島から約90キロメートルも離れた離れた孤島である竹島を朝鮮領として認める意図があったのであるとすれば、朝鮮本土からやや離れている巨文島が条約中に明記されたように、そのことを明記しておかなければならなかったであろう。” Though Japan was a defeated country, her sovereignty can’t be transferred without the consent of Japan in international law.＜ref>大壽堂鼎(Prof. Daijyudo Kanae)　領土帰属の国際法p149 “平和条約はいかに戦勝国が敗戦国に強制するものとはいえ、敗戦国は同意した範囲外の事項についてまで拘束されないことは言うまでもない(It is natural that the defeated country is not restrained about a matter outside the her consent though the peace treaty is what the victorious country compels it to the defeated country.)”PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie “The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war.” It has been proven that the many records of the U.S. looks like Rusk documents did not include Liancourt Rocks in the treaty as Japanese renounce territory. ICJ judged that the decision in 1939 of Britain who is a suzerain of Qatar and Bahrain restrained the two countries in the judicial precedentCASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION　AND TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS　BETWEEN QATAR AND BAHRAIN by ICJ; See article 107, 146, 147 and 148  . A scholar is pointing out that the judgment and records of the U.S. that initiated the SF treaty has significance effect same as this ICJ judgment.芹田健太郎（Prof. Serita Kentaro）中央公論2006年11月号　p273-274 “（カタールとバーレーンの判例紹介）したがって、連合国を主導した米国の前述の記述は極めて大きな意味を持ち、国際司法裁判所で竹島問題が審議されれば、同裁判所の判例の動向から推察して米国の判断は日韓両国を拘束すると判示する蓋然性は高いと韓国の専門家も考えるからである。((Introduction of judicial precedent of ICJ and Rusk documents)…..Then the records of the above-mentioned of the U.S. that initiated the Allies have significance effect. If Takeshima is discussed in International Court of Justice, from the judicial precedent, the possibility to be judged that the judgment of the United States restrains the Japan-South Korea is high. The Korean specialist will also think so.)” 
Seriously, Opp are trying trying to teach law here or give the readers impartial information about Liancourt Rocks?Clownface (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read attached references really? According references, Opp2 did not say it but Japanese scholar said it. --W/mint-Talk- 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you hate International Law so much, you should delete descriptions based on the thesis of Myung-Ki Kim(terra nullius contradiction, Ogasawara, notification and Russia~Japan War etc.). If you did not do it, you might be considered that the double criterion was used. The selection that you can do is two. You recover my edit or delete Kim's description. I will wait for 24 hours. Please don't let me down.--Opp2 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of the Liancourt rocks as it did with the acquisition of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands in the Pacific, when it contacted Great Britain and the U.S. several times, which were only remotely involved in them, as well as notified 12 European countries of its establishment of control over the islands. (In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.)
By the way, it is not only a Japanese scholar that denies above claims. A Korean scholar is negative, too. When you delete this sentence, I will introduce the thesis.--Opp2 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Blabber

message: I totally disagree with Opp2 definition of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and rather that revert warring I'd like a concensus reached by an impartial party if possible. This is getting rediculous!!124.80.111.109 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you fear? Does it try to be concealed the insistence why? I do not intend to point out the fault and the contradiction of Vandyke's interraption at the article. I do not obstruct the insistence of South Korea too. The edit war doesn't occur if you do not obstruct the insistence of Japan like Clownface. It only has to write an insistence each other augustly.--Opp2 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to have this page monitored and dispute settled

message: Opp, I hope you know that nobody cares anymore about your research and other stuff. We aren't here to interpret documents and/or interpret them in your own way. If you're here to attempt to add information that is full of OR, its not gonna be up there for long. Wikipedia is not a place for you to make new threads everyday about what you think should be done and how you see the documents in your own way. So please, for the last time, try something productive. Good friend100 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am presenting scholar's second source. You do not only see it. Your means have already been exposed. After all, you want only to exclude the Japanese　interpretation. It is POV-pushing to exclude the Japanese insistence though the second source is presented. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For instance, I am presenting the source of Prof. FUNASUGI in this edit. His specialty is a historical geography. Is this OR? Do you have the right to deny Prof. Funasugi, Prof.Daijyudo, Prof.Serita and Prof. Shimojyo?--Opp2 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This Map was sent by Kotani to Edo. Can you see Manoshima? In a Japanese map at that time, Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) is being written in Takeshima's(Ulleungdo) southeast. Is there a Japanese map that wrote Matsushima in the north of Ullengdo at that time? By the way, the map of the Hayashi became an issue prohibition from the shogunate because it was inaccurate. Why can you predicable the island without name in such a map?  --Opp2 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, pressing such "Korean Presumption with Original Reserch" like this is POVpusshing. --Opp2 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your point is always abstract. Are not you criticizing me by your subjectivity? Please point it out concretely. --Opp2 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  opp2, you need to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not your school research paper. I think an article should comprise of facts regardless of POV matters. Even then, as good friend100 has said, there are no kpov sentiments. Just because it isn't jpov doesn't mean it's kpov. Odst (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  your POV bickering is pointless. We want to place facts, despite what POV it conflicts with. iluvbees (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that your NPOV and POV pushing meaens "Korean interpretation is absolute fact and Japanese interpretation can not admit." I am never insisting that we should delete Korean interpretation. Why do you fear the Japanese interpretation so much?--Opp2 (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't; I simply have no concern for revisionist bs... What makes you think the interpretation in the article is just "korean interpretation", as you say? I've stated it before, and I'll state it again: Simply because it conflicts with jpov  in no way means that the an article can be deemed Pov, or as you like to call it "korean interpretation". <o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original researching and POV-pushing 

message: I figured that it would be a waste of time having to argue an bicker with opp2. so I think I'll go about on a unilateral rampage... I'm too lazy to combat the arguments set by opp2, so I think I'll just sit tight and ignore his wonderful comments. Odst (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have understood there are no rational reasons in your rv.. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hmm, then I question your level of understanding. Your welcome. Odst (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have understood there are no rational reasons in your rv and POV pushing. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have understood that there are no rational reasons in your jpov edits. And you're welcome, you flatter me too much. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! 

message: Much as I dislike "... in pop culture" sections, for what it's worth: If there is anything similar at this article, it might be worth noting that the 1997 South Korean film, No. 3 has a very funny scene concerning the Takeshima/Dokdo controversy. Japanese and Korean gangsters are meeting at a Room-Salon together when a loud argument breaks out between them over the ownership of Dokdo/Takeshima. Dekkappai (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen that movie, but it can't possibly be funnier than this.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks-- I'll check it out later, Hong. I give the movie a middling review-- a little heavy-handed for me. The Takeshima/Dokdo bickering between the gangsters gave me a laugh anyway. Cheers. Dekkappai (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good old Robo Taekwon-V to the rescue! Who is that he fights? Mazinger Zed? I still say the gangster argument in the movie was funnier though. Dekkappai (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A good solution to keep both sides equally unhappy. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually HQG, People who side with Korea on this issue would probably have no problem with that, as thats the Chinese pronunciation of the characters used for Tokdo.  The people who side with the Japanese would probably be okay if you wanted to relocate this page to Jukdo or whatever bamboo island is in Chinese.  Bethereds (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...in Popular Culture

message: Yeojiji was assumed the loss. However, apograph of the Yeojiji was discovered by Prof. Sang-Hak Oh(呉尚学) of Cheju National University(済州大学) recently. The quotation of Yeojiji that recorded in Man 'gi yoram turned out a lie. Therefore, the description of the following articles becomes wrong, too. --Opp2 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeojiji 

message: The following descriptions are based on the thesis of Myung-Ki Kim.
notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of the Liancourt rocks as it did with the acquisition of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands in the Pacific, when it contacted Great Britain and the U.S. several times, which were only remotely involved in them, as well as notified 12 European countries of its establishment of control over the islands. (In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.)
Even Wikimachine admitted the inaccuracy of this thesis of Myung-Ki Kim. 
*Hey Opp2, a better alternative to "stupid" would be "obtuse". (Wikimachine 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, but I don't really like your poor grammar. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can correct the grammar of my edit. However, you cannot retouch POV-balance. Thank you agreeing with my edit policy. --Opp2 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't recall agreeing with your edit policy at all, opp2. Thank you for trying to put your words in my mouth, but i must kindly refuse... I don't like your edit policy, nor will I ever in the next 2 or 3 millennia... I prefer sticking to raw logic, unlike this. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, do you want to press the Korean interpretation as a fact? Is this NPOV for you? --Opp2 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ive stated this before, and i'll do it again... just because it conflicts with jpov does not necessarily mean it coflicts with npov. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood you were not able to do a concrete point. --Opp2 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  all you need is some logic, my friend. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ogasawara case and Japanese contradiction theory 

message: Seriously, this page is turning into a joke and I half to laugh when I read what it has digressed into lately.
This page needs a real cleaning up and to remove some of the POV's.
It's slowly turning into "Japanese scholars says, but Korean scholars say"... or "Professor Yamanaka says...." but "Professor Kim says.."
The broken English and poor grammar shows this article has spiralled from a source of information into a debate forum for Japanese and Korean lobbyists. What a sham!!Clownface (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, you're right... I can't help but credit this to our good friend opp2... though I'm also partly to blame... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there's nothing to thank me for, since I have no idea what you are ranting on about. My edits will remain unilateral, and I don't care if you have to bring in the arbcomm for this. Rather, I think I should bring them in for your incursions... that's too bad, since i might get blocked for being very rude... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page Needs Moderation

message: Korean scholer, Japanese Scholer, ewww... it's scholar, by the way. Who the hell are these ridiculous scholer scholar people? They could be revisionist hoodlums, for only god knows. good friend100 is right, this article really needs some cleanup. I'm gonna look into some of this stuff for some more clarification. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, shall we select the Japanese scholar's interpretation as a fact? If you agree to my proposal, we should not write "Korean scholer,Japanese Scholer" anymore. --Opp2 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, no revisionist moron should be ever recognized as a scholar in the first place... the "korean scholar", whoever he is, happens to place a logical argument on the table, and also happens to perpetually agree with just about every intelligent being on this planet. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: revisionist? Do you decide it?Do you classify the scholar? Though you cannot point out issues concretely, are you a highest authority of the world? I am very surprised now.--Opp2 (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would not take an idiot to figure the absurdity of this so-called scholar. Place and authority has no meaning when it comes to logic. Let's see, for example. The "scholar" says that Dokdo, the only visible island from the mainland besides Ulleungdo, is actually supposed to be jukdo. Jukdo is four kilometers east of Ulleungdo, and there is no place in Kanghwa or gyeongsang, where you can actually see Jukdo. That leaves Dokdo, which actually can be seen off the coast, next to Ulleungdo. this perpetually proves that Dokdo is actually Usando. You see, when idiots are nagging without giving up, ignoring clear refutations, other researchers have no choice but to ignore them in turn. you see what I mean? I have more to point out, but now I'm sleepy. Merry Christmas. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, Who is? I do not know the scholar who presumes the record in 1400's to Jukdo from the distance. Kawakami assumes doubled Ulleungdo. Shimojo's claim is not based on the interpritation of distance. Prof. Funasugi also is judging that Usando at that time is confused Ulleungdo. The record that 86 people live there is main evidence. It is after Ahn's event that the Japanese scholar presumes Usando to Jukdo. This is because the geography recognition of Usando of Korea's maps etc. was changed. Do not you know Usando in Korean maps moved from the west of Ulleungdo to east after Ahn's event? Please teach the Japanese scholar's name and thesis. --Opp2 (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition,"南峯稍卑 風日清明 則峯頭樹木及山根沙渚 歴歴可見" Do you look clear a tree away at 92km? Do you see the tree though there is no tree at the island? Poor thing!! The Korean scholar and government become revisionist based on your logic. --Opp2 (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: He is answering the distance between Ulleungdo and Korea as 30 ris. Actually, it is 140km. Then, when this distance feeling of him is applied to 50 ris, it becomes 233km(140km/30ri*50ri). By the way, the distanse between Liancourt Rocks and Ulleungdo are 92km. The distanse between Oki and Ulleungdo are 245km. In addition, did you read 竹島紀事 and 邊例集要? After the source is arranged, I will retouche the article.--Opp2 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no point in arguing with you, since you are already clearly motivated in your twisted 
thinking... ah, what a pity... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! 

message: Opp2 is annoying me a lot, and I am ready to bring in arbcom to clean up this mess. Opp2, I understand where you are trying to go with this, but your poor grammar and inability to present controversial topics discretely is taking its toll. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the personal attack. Please present the source. And, please continue a gentleman discussion. --61.209.168.242 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop falsely accusing anyone by your bad faith, dear anon with the Japanese ip address. I've seen Opp2 saying so many personal insults against Korean editors such as "mentally unstable", "emotional", and so forth. You need to face what is really going on here. Odst's opinion is correct in the light of Opps writings. And what is "a gentleman discussion"? Are you purposely excluding "ladies" on this talk page? Please behave like a "gentleman" or "lady". Just like Odst's opinion, this page is needed to go to the Arbitration committee again.--Appletrees (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appletrees, Please do not become emotional. Even if you abuse him as toll and revisionist, the correctness of your insistence is not proven. You should point out the mistake of the insistence on Opp2. The fact of the history never changes by his character. For instance, cannot you trust his source? --61.209.168.242 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 61.209.168.242, please don't be a lier and troll as you abuse this talk page with your wrong frames. You're the person being "emotional" right now with no logic per your wordings. I just said my agreement with Odst's "right" opinion and your wonderful comment on "gentleman discussion". Don't be emotional and be a "gentleman" with common sense. Your refraining from framing innocent people will be much help for this article. --Appletrees (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi,61.209.168.242 Perhaps, I think that they cannot do a concrete point even if it asks them. An abstract point of OR and POV is done, and the grammar is pointed out at the end. This is the same one year ago. This is the same as Wikimachine too. The maximum and final reason why they should exclude me seems to be a grammar now. Therefore, I am gladder of the correction of the grammar than an abstract discussion here.--Opp2 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your edit excluded the Japanese interpretation. I restored your correction about "grammar" as much as possible. I will want you to divide the edit of the content from the grammar because it is very troublesome. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously, you don't have any sense of logical thinking, and considering this anonymous user's grammatical structure, I'd like to say it is you. Look, Wikipedia aims to place a fluid compendium of reliable facts, and it is in no way a table for testification for any party of sorts. Your  Shumane prefecture reference is in no way a reliable resource for fact. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  !! 

message: You guys are making things worse by arguing. The article is under watch by arbcom and its impossible for Opp2 to make any kind of POV-pushing to the article that would result in an edit war. We don't need people telling Opp that he's wrong.
Frankly, I think that he doesn't fully understand how controversial articles like this one is run. Saying that the article is pro-Korean because he can't add any of his POV-pushing projects in it is wrong. This article is not biased toward any side at all.
Just stop arguing with him. This is getting so immature. In fact why am I even here. Good friend100 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you are shocking. You believed Korean one-sided interpretation as a fact and NPOV, because the Japanese interpretation was excluded. However, you learnt it now. Because the your complex collapsed, you seem to be confused. You are doing an abstract criticism and personal attack like this for the confusion. You should cool. I hope you get well soon.--Opp2 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, sorry to say this, but your point of view is too narrow for this sort. your edits simply base upon arguments, and not facts. Disputed or not, I don't think the entire Jewish holocaust article focuses on dispute and denial. Does the article take turns foolishly in every paragraph addressing the arguments of both parties? In an encyclopedia, there is no such thing as pov balance. It is clearly childish and confusing, puzzling the reader unfamiliar with the topic. WP:POV has only provisions for presenting facts in euphemism and/or proven concepts. Just because it conflicts with a single arguing party does not necessarily violate npov. Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea.  Your edits are simply non-constructive and inconclusive, and to add to further outrage, I don't think anyone appreciates your sly methods of indirect provocation. You seriously annoy the shit out of me, and the only reason I am here arguing with you is because I want to take any action to prevent further incursions without having to report you for arbitration. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW! What an extreme POV! --Opp2 (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that all you can think of saying? poor, poor, fella... Do you even read my messages? I honestly think you are not getting the point.  o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please ignore Opp2 

message: Odst insists on "The insistence on Opp2 is POV"
Odst explained that "Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea." was a reason. However, this insistence is not well-grounded. Odst should promptly present grounds. And, please request the rebuttal from Opp. 
Odst was called "Opp was revisionist's Trawl and childish". However, it is a useless conversation to this article. I expect Odst to banish Opp by the discussion. Then, please present grounds that prove "Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea". --211.3.113.58 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend to discuss which evidence and the interpretation are correct. When only either interpretation will be selected, it will destroy the POV balance and the edit war is generated. Therefore, my insistence is easy. Both interpretations should be introduced under the equal condition. They seem to be confident of the Korean interpretation. In that case, I do not understand why they try to exclude the Japanese interpretation. If an absurd Japanese interpretation is described, it becomes advantageous for them. Therefore, I feel their edits and personal attacks in this page very mysterious.--Opp2 (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   that was not the point, Opp2. Read the whole thing again. The sentence you quoted with what I think is your sockpuppet was simply an example to explain my point in pov concepts. I don't have to go into detail, and I won't, since you fail to understand the addressed point. Also, there is no such thing as a pov balance in an encyclopedia. Is that so hard to understand? Please stop your arbitrary actions and think over where you tripped.  o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Odst cannot concretely point out the mistake of Opp2, he might do personal attack. --Orchis29 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  congratulations on creating your first legitimate sockpuppet!!! May you live forever. I hope that it will help YOU concretely justify out your own mistakes... What personal attack? it's called constructive criticism... hmm, I don't see you concretely pointing out facts, either, slyly evading refutations. Well, that closes the lid on you; I don't feel like talking to you anymore. happy new year!  o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Odst, You do not suffice consideration. You should not call the hated user sockpuppet. You do not suffice consideration. And, you are emotional. This is your fault. You should be conscious of this fault. --Orchis29 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The insistence on Opp2 is POV

message: Opp2 I'm tired of you slying editing the San Francisco Peace Treaty portion of this page and trying to turn historical fact into POV. There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the San Francisco Peace Treaty Opp2. Stop being so slimy by trying to assert this is a Korean interpretation. The entire text of the treaty is below. If you can find one syllable that mentions Liancourt Rocks we can enter this data. Otherwise STOP vandalizing this fact.Clownface (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: however,It is significant to writing details not treated by the SF Treaty and the section is created by me.Opp2 is unrelated of making of this section.Please stop the personal attack. --Forestfarmer (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop falsely accusing and framing editors on the other side of making personal attacks. It does NOT have  any significant meaning to include SF Treaty because of its irrelevant subject to this article. Your false accusation is not a constructive behavior to improve Wikipedia. Please refrain from leaving disruptive comments here.--Appletrees (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty Opp2

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)
thread_title:  Consistently poor use of English in this article