User talk:KhProd1

Preah Vihear
Remove Khmer script for what reason? If we can't accept each other's agreement then remove all, until there is a final word to "include" or "not include" Thai script. There is much problems, remove it from now. I've been sicked of reverting. --Passawuth (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what are you reverting for? I only just added Thai script in the introduction. --Passawuth (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I kept adding Thai script many times before I could notice a debate. --Passawuth (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then. You Khmers want so much. Then do as what you want. Will come back for a second debate. --Passawuth (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops! Sorry! :D If you are not Khmer then I will pay more attention to you. --Passawuth (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see we need to change understanding.
 * I thought you were a Khmer (silly of me! :P - I notice James Cook part but I still didn't think anything).
 * I must accept you know some Thai history, but there's much you don't know about as those are written in Thai old documents which I don't at all expect you to know all about it. But as I thought you were a Khmer, my emotion rose higher than ever before.
 * Next time, please be specific that you are an Australian. I don't know a thing about St.... and Dark something... --Passawuth (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I will explain to you clearly, as you are not a Khmer. They wouldn't listen. The reason I see Furil island and Prasat Preah Vihear is not irrelevant is becuase:
 * This is not a whole island - it is located between two contries.
 * The only accessible safety entrance is in Thai side. If you have study the case clearly, you will find that we returned the land that supports the temple and some more. However, if you want to get to the temple from Cambodia you have to climb a broken dangerous ancient stairs because the temple was on the cliff. As Thai side is on the cliff, you can entered very easily. Cambodia has to co-operate with Thailand and both get advantage. This is not only one party control whole of it. Thailand still have got important role in it. After the World Court of Justice ruled it belonged to Cambodia, we returned. However, we closed all the entrances from Thailand side. Cambodians and other tourists who wish to visit must use the broken dangerous stairs, which may cost their lives. It's also not irrelevant because there was no war - no fighting - no losing lives unlike Furil island.
 * Some books use the word "Prasat Phra Viharn". It's good just to explain that the Khmer language is this and Thai language is this in the introduction.

I will start really listen to your points for now, as you're not a Khmer. --Passawuth (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thai history
I'd like to inform you that Cambodia invaded Thailand was one century before James Cook was born. --Passawuth (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Prasat
Note that the word "Prasat" only means "castle". In Thai we use Prasat Hin (ปราสาท หิน - Rock castle) for Khmer temple. (Some titles have 'Prasat' and some titles have 'Prasat Hin' depends on what temple it is). The individual "Prasat" itself doesn't make sense when it is separated. If you only mention the word 'prasat' to any Thai people, then they will imagine the middle-age castle. You have to indicate that it is 'Prasat hin' --Passawuth (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonthi
You have completely no rights to tell me to listen or not to listen to Sonthi. You are an Australians. I may have some reason not to listen to Sonthi if you are a Thai or at least a Cambodian. But you're not!

I may have to ask you furthermore that have you study to topic thoroughly and clearly. You said that if you don't have information about that directly, you will just editing grammar. You did swear solemnly, didn't you? Well then, why do you said Sonthi was wrong. You have no rights to said he was wrong nor right. You're not a Thai or a Cambodian. Detailed documents are put in Thai and Khmer and some English.

I don't think you are really an Australian. I begin to suspect you. Why do you want to edit much of this Thai-Cambodian dispute since you just created account not for 3 weeks and come into this fuss? How do you know clearly Sonthi was PAD leader?

Are you a sockpuppet?

If you study this case clearly you will know that ICJ said three things:


 * 1) "The temple" located in Cambodia and under its power.
 * 2) Thai soldiers, police or guards must get away from the temple.
 * 3) Thailand had to return any antiques she get from the temple.

THE DISPUTED AREA DIDN'T INCLUDE THE TEMPLE. STUDY CLEARLY. YOU ARE NOT A PRO. IN THIS SUBJECT. --Passawuth (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I may have to suspect you as a sockpuppet of Kiensvay. There's absolute no doubt why don't you edit about Australian subjects. You are just a sockpuppet. --Passawuth (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you study the topic clearly you will know that ICJ didn't rule how much surrounding land of the temple belongs. Thai government had made the border clearly. But the current disputed area is covered but such a horrid people like Hun Sen. --Passawuth (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not think I will not know about how your account was created for sockpuppet. --Passawuth (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Then can you tell me why you know so much about Thailand and Cambodia? I suspect you when you can tell our history clearly. I mean like... if you're Australian, it's 10% that you want to study Suvarnabhumi history. I don't understand for why you seem to know everything - normal Australian wouldn't be interest even tiny part of it. (I'm a pessimist) --Passawuth (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
You edit the same subjects as Kiensvay. No Australian subjects. I want to tell Kiensvay or Kiensvay's sockpuppet for a long time that I believed T-Rithy, Bopha and other users else are all his sockpuppets. I must apologize if you're not. But if you are.... --Passawuth (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Oh... I must apologize for misunderstanding then. --Passawuth (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Location of Preah Vihear Temple
I have reverted your edit. The reference doesn't said so. The whole section was copied and rearranged from my book. As it doesn't provide me what you have just added, I must delete the additional text. As you may have realise, if I have copied 1 sentence from the reference, other sentences are up to you. But if I copied from whole paragraph, I think, I may not can add additional texts to it. If you have a different thought please discuss and tell me why. Thank you. --Passawuth (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NO DISC & RVV, ARV OK ? --Passawuth (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Do not think I will not know about Timor. Behind the scene is Australia want to get oil from Indonesia so you blame them like that. --Passawuth (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, does this clip make you familiar to someone that "like to blame other countries but don't look at themselves"? What about One Nation Party that have some rubbish policy to get Asians out? Oh... I understand.

If your heart is closed, even if the sound is so loud, you won't hear it. But when your heart is opened, even if the sound is so quiet, you will hear it. --Passawuth (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm being a mirror. A mirror allows yourself to see what you cannot see. Once you have seen it, you cannot be angry. The mirror shows yourself as what you are like. You cannot force mirror to show only your positive side. Mirror do not meant to hurt you, but shows only the truth. If you are angry with this, I must apologise. 


 * Also, I forgot, mentioning your history. Snatching Aborigine's land? Stealing their children and their wifes? And then for years, there is no apologising, with your stubbornness. Just now, you make yourself like a "saint" and apologise. But looking by this, Australia, ORIGINALLY, whom it belonged to? If you said Thailand "illegally" got Khmer land, Australia - I meant James Cook "ILLEGALLY" occupied Aborigine's land which they have been for there centuries before James Cook was born. If you are wishing Thailand to get out of "Thailand's land", get out of Australia yourself and let Aborigines & Innocent Black People rule themselves.

Saying we hit the weaker? We and the Khmers both hold swords. You hold the guns, cannons and bombs and Aborigines hold spears. Super fair for Australia.

And being a journalist/reporter, do they have to know everything correctly in the world? Sometimes you reported the news wrong, you apologised. If you are a journalist that reports the truth, you have to open your mind, listen to 2 sides before analysing what is right and what is wrong. Later, when you have gathered all the information and analysed it, criticised it in whatever way you want. This is the ethic of a journalist, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passawuth (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On August 5, 2008, the director of Thailand's Fine Arts Department claimed Thailand's unilateral listing of Ta Moan Thom and Ta Moan Touch was evidence of their being on Thai soil. This opinion overlooks the 1962 judgement of the ICJ.

Are you conscious? 1962 judgment is about Preah Vihear Temple. If you say like that you are not following an ethic of a journalist. Biasing and incorrect information without any general knowledge and analysing correct information - this gives you a very bad example of a journalist that any media couldn't possibly bear with. --Passawuth (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromising
How about an experiment page for you and me to edit until I and you both accept the text? --Passawuth (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Passawuth/2008 Cambodian-Thai stand-off - Don't replace all the text or you won't see a "new" messages in the article. Edit in whatever way you like. But I want it manually not by replacing all the text. --Passawuth (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. How's that? I slightly changed texts, although you may want to add and delete some. I must assume I really can't accept "non-exist demarcation". Please listen to this, I'm not going to complain:


 * 1) ISSUE 1: According to the judgment of ICJ (in Thai), Thailand have to give Preah Vihear and "surrounding lands" but ICJ didn't rule how wide the area is. So, we gave surrounding parts according to the Ministry announcement “It was limited not more than 150 rai [a Thai measurement]. The shape was a pentagon trapezium. By, limiting from the Nakha stairs [ancient stairs to get up the cliff] to the north 20 metre. To the east limit until the cliff. To the west, from the center of the temple and center of the walkways 100 metre.” This is a map Thailand accepts. See that there are some areas surrounding Preah Vihear we gave as well. The green area highlighted is not, according to the government in 1962, a part of the judgment. Why? ICJ didn't say how much land Thailand have to return. We returned those surroundings, but never withdrawn from the green area.

WAIT...


 * 1) ISSUE 2: With these reasons, Thailand and Cambodia had tried to demarcate the green area for decades, but they couldn't. The topic has gone from Thais and Cambodians people for years. It now boiling again.

So, demarcating is just whether green is Thai or Cambodian. I understand like that.

--Passawuth (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand:

The Cambodian government has a long-standing position that "the inscription of the temple will not affect nor prejudice the rights of Cambodia and Thailand on the demarcation work of the Joint Commission for Land Boundary of the two countries," he added.

both sides have plan to plant demarcation posts in accordance with the border and geographic lines specified in bilateral treaty.

From: XinHua News Agency

The border in the area around Preah Vihear has never been fully demarcated.

From: Merhrom --Passawuth (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand when I read the judgment:

The map of the Dangrek sector... neighborhood of the Temple of Preah Vihear

Ta Maon Thom isn't on Dangrek sector, is it? Also, you should not change Sdok Kok Thom to be located in Cambodia, as this temple is definitely on Thailand. Furthermore, ICJ didn't rule how much the area surrounding Preah Vihear Temple is. Yes, Cambodia requested the Annex Map I BUT the judgment I read is this:

Court

9-3

ruled that the sovereignty of Prasat Phra Viharn belongs to Cambodia

9-3

ruled that Thailand have to withdraw the detachments of armed force in the area surrounding Prasat Phra Viharn

7-5

sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which have been removed from the Temple by the Thai authorities since 1954 are to be returned

Cambodia request Annex Map I but I don't see judgment say Annex Map I.

Furthermore, as Thailand and Cambodia holds different maps, the area has to be demarcated. If it is complete, why are there disputes now? Aahh... we are not the invader - the treaty says "by watershed line". If Australia has to lost Tasmania to New Zealand I'm sure Australia will do anyway to get back, such as getting soldiers there. --Passawuth (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The yellow area is right - as ICJ didn't rule Annex Map I and didn't point out how much area would we lost --Passawuth (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then please explain why Cambodia don't send soldiers to Ta Muen Thom Temple since 1962? If the soldiers are there, why do they allow Thai soldiers to come over to it? If it's their land how do they allow Thailand to conquer it? It 46 years now. Why now? Why not 1962? --Passawuth (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Judgment
Another big issue after I read and read the judgment:

In Thai, I found 3 books with the exact same words of judgment that doesn't include Annex Map I. So I read in English and it says:

"Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.

In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.

...

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line."


 * 1) Thai soldiers conquering Ta Moan Thom. The court just said withdraw any military stationed at the Temple or its vicinity Vicinity of Preah Vihear is not Ta Moan Thom.
 * 2) Only the Temple of Preah Vihear situated in Cambodian territory.
 * 3) In the disputed area. How wide is the disputed area? Does it include Ta Moan complex?
 * 4) Both Thai and English make sense to me Ta Moan Thom conquering is the correct action for Thailand and the disputed area exists as Thailand holds the map L7017 and Cambodia holds another map. The demarcation has not yet been completed as Preah Vihear complex is a Joint Development Area.

I would also like to criticise ICJ a bit. The principle of the map making was to follow the watershed line. By saying that "don't care about the watershed line" makes me feel kind of thinking that this is not neutral. If we got the 1904 map which indicates Preah Vihear is in Thailand, we wouldn't lost the case, would we? Also, do you agree with the ICJ judgment which don't follow the watershed line?


 * Alert: Is the trial page finished yet? Biasing translations in Vietnamese was already done. --Passawuth (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have answered you and have read the judgment in both Thai and English. Answer me then. Do not take side on Cambodia. Do not criticize our government. You are not Thai or Cambodian people and are not the magistrates. You only prefer to attack and give cons to Thai side, how could you say that you are neutral? Refrain from claiming nationalistic edits. Introductory paragraph need to indicate what which side claim. That is the reason for the stand-off. You, media, should listen to Thai media as well. If you are say they are lying, there is no doubt how Cambodia cannot lie as well. If Thailand, in your opinion, can lie, why cannot Cambodia? I ask you again, because I don't want to re-start the argument, write the information correctly and be objective. As well as this, stop adding http://www.preah-vihear.com - it is considered one of the spam website, as User:Ism chism (I might spell wrong) has said. It is written on one-side opinion and is not objective enough unlike BBC, which still have some biasing in my opinion. The website is not a useful website anyway. Please re-consider of what you believe in and stop thinking of nationalistic. Ask yourself first, please, have I ever trust Thai news, why only Cambodian, who told me, how can I do that? ... don't answer to me, answer to yourself... I hope that the situation will be better. --Passawuth (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit of Preah Vihear Temple
Hello KhProd1. Thank you for taking the time to explain me those details. I replied at my talk page (diff.). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Rye, East Sussex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lone Pine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V bomber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)