Misplaced Pages

User talk:Good friend100: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:20, 15 July 2006 editLactoseTI (talk | contribs)2,480 edits →Talk pages← Previous edit Revision as of 21:49, 15 July 2006 edit undoGood friend100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,121 edits →Talk pagesNext edit →
Line 35: Line 35:


::: Incidently, for the record, I'm NOT Japanese. ] 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ::: Incidently, for the record, I'm NOT Japanese. ] 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can point out you are angry. Nice rambling with your words and insults since you have nothing to say. It seems you really are a true defender of Japan as a sympathizer.

You are making me laugh. You think "Korea only visited Dokdo"? Hm. Maybe you should study a little more before throwing words at me. If you already didn't know, Korea at the time was the ] Dynasty. Silla annexed Dokdo, which at the time was part of an island kingdom called Usan-guk that included Ulleungdo as well. Silla annexed Usan-guk and so it became part of Korea in the 550s.

One thing '''really''' common of the Japan party is that they use literal terms as a weapon. One time, a user told me because the San Francisco treaty did not mention Dokdo, Dokdo was Japanese territory. Ok, then, I suppose '''every''' single one of the thousands of islands in Korea are still Japanese territory then, right? No. Of course not.

Also, another commoness among the Japan party is when I mention about Japan's pursuit for oil in Dokdo, nobody answers me or returns a comment about it at all. I suppose its because they know its true.

"Modern times, modern times, modern times" Thats all I hear too. "Japan has had Dokdo during modern times." Ok, then, when, during the modern times?

On January 29, 1946, the supreme command of the Allies released the military command of No. 677 of SCAPIN and returned Jejudo, Ulleungdo, and Dokdo back to Korea. On June 22, 1946, the Allies forbade Japanese fishermen to enter Dokdo waters by a radius of 12 miles. Still think Japan has had Dokdo during the modern times? Or do you have anything else to say?

IF you '''strongly''' believe that "Takeshima" is really Japanese territory and Korea has no right to interfere and be aggresive, then why don't you go to the Dokdo talk page and open a poll or argue for Japan's right to control and own Dokdo. Nothing is going to happen by just screaming in my talk page.

I really don't like your "Ding dong ping dong Dynasty" statement. That is an insult and I think you should stop. I am going to refer you to a Misplaced Pages coordinator immediately if you keep up with your insults.


"Korean propaganda machine..." Wow.


== Welcome! == == Welcome! ==

Revision as of 21:49, 15 July 2006

Talk pages

I believe these are supposed to be mostly about the articles in question. I'm not sure what raising the issue of Takeshima has to do with Yasukuni Shrine? It adds more unrelated material to wade through on already crowded pages. Komdori 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Dokdo/Takeshima and the Takeshima are both common in that Japan is raising disputes. Good friend100 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true; but I think discussions of the islands belong on that article's talk page instead. Japan and North Korea are having a disput now over missiles. Do you think it should be discussed on the Yasukuni shrine page as well? Komdori 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the users should be informed about bigger disputes between Korea and Japan and the fact that Japan is raising all these disputes, namely Dokdo. FYI, if you didn't know, Japan is suddenly claiming Dokdo recently for economical reasons rather than historical fact. Japan is an industrialized nation and it consumes a lot of energy. There is a possibility of gas reserves near Dokdo and Japan wants it.

Check out the number of supporting facts Korea has and how many Japan has. Good friend100 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course people should be informed about all main topics of the world, but unrelated Misplaced Pages articles are not a platform for spouting personal politics. It seems others have warned you of this as well... Incidently, since this is a talk page, one might feel more lax in their comments. I agree with Komdori that this stuff doesn't belong in an article page, though. Incidently, try to do a little more reading from non-point of view sources, and you might see that it's not such a clear cut issue. Takeshima has been clearly regarded as a Japanese possession for all modern history. Korea wants the land for the reason you are suggesting, although the maritime and global surveys are registered with the Japanese names, for example, stretching back for centuries. It's nothing "sudden."

Your statement that "Japan is raising these disputes" is also incorrect and argumentative--one could just as easily state that Korea is raising them. Koizumi's decision to visit Yasukuni is his own personal matter, and he is not making his decision based upon Korean opinions. This is clear because if he were, he wouldn't be going! The fact is he is Japanese, and in Japan. I and many others find it ironic that a foreign land would find fault with this. Mao alone killed many more than the country of Japan ever did. He is worshipped. Should people protest that in foreign lands? Please, try to have respect for others if you want respect for yourself.

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for you to spew your personal ideas, nor is it a club for you and your buddies to self-gratify by ganging up. Please read more about this project and its goals as an encyclopedia--not a forum LactoseTI 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are some of you too shamed of yourselves to even leave your own name on my page?
I wonder why everyone is ganging up on my talk page? Is this an "attack" since I am pushing out to strong?
"Takeshima has been clearly regarded as a Japanese possession for all modern history." You are making me laugh. So then, where is the proof? Japan had possesion of Dokdo all this time?
THe only reason why Japan is screaming for Dokdo is more of economical reasons rather than historical fact. Since Japan is an indusltrialized nation, it consumes a lot of energy. There is talk about gas reserves near Dokdo. That is why Japan wants it. The gas near Dokdo, not for historical facts. It is so obvious how there are more historical facts Korea has then Japan.
The earliest date of Japan's territory of "Takeshima" was in the 1600s. The Korean source has gone back to the 550s. And even if your Japanese historians scream that the 550s source mention Jukdo, not Dokdo, Korea still has the oldest record in 1432, when King Sejong, during the Joseon Dynasty, had a map drwan called the "Sejongsillokjiriji".
Do you have any proof that Japan has had Dokdo all this time and Korea is being aggresive to them? Maybe you should look in your famous Japanese textbook. Good friend100 12:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, you seem to have been blinded by Korea's engine of propaganda. Your source mentions the territory was VISITED in the 550's. By that logic, I suppose the countries where Vikings came from should claim North America as theirs since there are records of them visiting--nay, there are even artifacts. If your claim is true, then why is Takeshima the recognized name of the area? And why is it recognized as a Japanese possession by the UN? Korea is desperate to keep the issue out of court because of these facts. It doesn't matter what happened in any Ding Dong/Ping Pong "Dynasties". The fact remains that it was clearly Japanese territory in modern times, and never ceded by any treaty. The Ainu don't try to kick out the Japanese, the Native American Indians aren't trying to remove Westerners, etc. Don't read a propaganda mush, try informing yourself of international law, instead. It's true that Japan is applying increased pressure to the area, but that's only because Korea started doing the same thing.
The only reason Korea has made any claim to the area was a unilateral move by a South Korean president, stating it was theirs in the 1950's. Well, I could state all of South Korea is mine, it doesn't make it true. What's more, finding that some peasant scribbled a blob on a piece of paper he called a map doesn't make for a modern day territorial claim.
Records of "who was there" does't matter either--Britain clearly was in control of the US colonies (there's a record) but it's not part of Britain today. Land is ceded and acquisitioned at various times by various nations. Japan annexed it a long time ago, this is recognized, and nothing Korea can do will change the fact that it was never ceded after that point in time.
Incidently, for the record, I'm NOT Japanese. LactoseTI 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can point out you are angry. Nice rambling with your words and insults since you have nothing to say. It seems you really are a true defender of Japan as a sympathizer.

You are making me laugh. You think "Korea only visited Dokdo"? Hm. Maybe you should study a little more before throwing words at me. If you already didn't know, Korea at the time was the Unified Silla Dynasty. Silla annexed Dokdo, which at the time was part of an island kingdom called Usan-guk that included Ulleungdo as well. Silla annexed Usan-guk and so it became part of Korea in the 550s.

One thing really common of the Japan party is that they use literal terms as a weapon. One time, a user told me because the San Francisco treaty did not mention Dokdo, Dokdo was Japanese territory. Ok, then, I suppose every single one of the thousands of islands in Korea are still Japanese territory then, right? No. Of course not.

Also, another commoness among the Japan party is when I mention about Japan's pursuit for oil in Dokdo, nobody answers me or returns a comment about it at all. I suppose its because they know its true.

"Modern times, modern times, modern times" Thats all I hear too. "Japan has had Dokdo during modern times." Ok, then, when, during the modern times?

On January 29, 1946, the supreme command of the Allies released the military command of No. 677 of SCAPIN and returned Jejudo, Ulleungdo, and Dokdo back to Korea. On June 22, 1946, the Allies forbade Japanese fishermen to enter Dokdo waters by a radius of 12 miles. Still think Japan has had Dokdo during the modern times? Or do you have anything else to say?

IF you strongly believe that "Takeshima" is really Japanese territory and Korea has no right to interfere and be aggresive, then why don't you go to the Dokdo talk page and open a poll or argue for Japan's right to control and own Dokdo. Nothing is going to happen by just screaming in my talk page.

I really don't like your "Ding dong ping dong Dynasty" statement. That is an insult and I think you should stop. I am going to refer you to a Misplaced Pages coordinator immediately if you keep up with your insults.


"Korean propaganda machine..." Wow.

Welcome!

Hello, Good friend100, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Misplaced Pages, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Misplaced Pages sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It's certainly nice to have more Korean editors around. Ssome of the topics you touched upon is deemed controversial and you may need to discuss more of your changes before posting =). Also, please visit Portal:Korea to see what parts of Korea-related article needs more work and etc. Anyway, welcome! Deiaemeth 02:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, about your recent changes

First of all, I read your user page. I sure do hope that you get to win her. Definitely, I am 100% behind your wish.

Anyways, about the Admiral Yi article, I saw that you made a large deletion of a section. I read the section, and I also agree with your deletion.

But is it true that he really spent the early years of his service up in the north fighting the Jurchens? If it is then, we should have modified on it, not deleted it. Thanks for your participation, good friend. (Wikimachine 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Koreansword.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Koreansword.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV in Seven-Year War

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV rules and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Supadawg - ] 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Supadawg - ] 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimachine

Hey Good friend100! I will be restricted from internet connection (thus Misplaced Pages) most of the time, and I will not be able to respond to many of the arguments that I had already exposed myself to. I discussed much with you, and I think you are a very experienced Wikipedian.

So, on my talk page, I left a list of Wikipedians whom people might contact in place of me. Such people might include User talk:Objectman and many other JPOV advocates.

Also, if you happen to scroll over arguments that I used to continue, and the JPOV Wikipedians' comebacks aren't answered, you could answer them for me -that is, if you happen to know about the subject.

Thanks for doing this favor! (Wikimachine 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Today I found out that I am availed internet access. Thanks anyways. (Wikimachine 14:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Hansan1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hansan1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hansanbattle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hansanbattle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Battlemap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlemap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fix

Fix your bot it is malfunctioning. Good friend100 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Malfunctioning? How so? --Carnildo 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Imjin War peer review

Hi! Just to let you know, I've moved your request to a separate subpage at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Imjin War. Kirill Lokshin 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Award

Thank you very much for the barnstar! If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

i thank you, too, for the barnstar. i hope everyone can work together to improve korea-related articles & fend of the never-ending vandalism. i hope you stick around & enjoy contributing here as much as i do :-) Appleby 17:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Misplaced Pages.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

AWARDS

The Epic Barnstar
I hereby present Good friend100 with the Epic Barnstar for his incredible contributions to Korea's history related articles Oyo321 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I hereby (again) present Good friend100 for his efforts to improve the quality of Korea history related articles Oyo321 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Battle of Tadaejin

Thank you for creating the article. I will probably request your help cuz my Korean is a bit low. See you soon. An-nyung !Whlee 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


yo

안영하세요 korean: 저는 1989년 9월 13일에 태여났씁다. 나는 영어,독일말 와 한자 지금 배우고 근데 나는 한국말 잘 하는 데,근데 나는 한국말 컴퓨터에 칠떼 엄청 느림고 한국말 못씁니다. 나는 KBS Drama "서울 1945"봅니다.너는 서울 1945 시러 하는것 아라요.나는 상간 없는다.근데 나는 좋아헤요. 다시 나한테 한국말 아니면 영어로 말해줘요. english: can i help you finish the imjin war timeline?i can help you complete it.talk to me in english,my bad about korean. dark-hooded smoker

Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Japan#READ_THIS

Thanks for sticking up for Korea on the Japanese talk page. I wrote something myself which you might find interesting. Taeguk Warrior 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Helicopters

You're right to observe what you did about the naming. It's an irony (to put it mildly) that strikes me too. I suggest there is little to be gained by raising it on that talk page though. I wonder when and why the policy was instituted? --Guinnog 12:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)