User talk:Lexico

Welcome
Thank you for your edits to the Japanese people page. I hope you will stay and help us develop other pages. Why not use your user page to tell us a little about yourself By the way you can sign your name with four tildes ( ~ ), but you don't need to sign articles. Thanks again Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the welcome, Zeimusu. I have written on only a select number of topics since I first contributed to a sinology topic although I have maintained an avid interest in a wide range of subjects. I have left a few words of greetings to fellow Wikipedians, and also have learned to sign with the quadritlida. Thank you again, Zeimusu. Lex (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

some edit are Wrong

 * Thank you for your interest on the topic. I have read your comments, and will look into those details that you have brought up. While I understand editing this article is only mildly restricted (meaning you could contribute yourself as long as the material being added is well within the guidelines proposed and enforced), I also see that you wish to have it cleared by other editiors; your care to sticking with wiki policies is well appreciated.


 * Nevertheless, I have not written the following subsections myself although I might have triggered some. The fact is my contributions were also corrected or moderated by other contributors. I am sure there will be some response to your request, but if there is none a week from now, I shall seriously look into how I might best accommodate your request within the wiki guidelines.


 * One last note: It is unfortunate you only left a personal message for me and Sunrise at Future Perfect because your response, which is quite legitimate in many aspects, would have gained a wider attention that it deserved had you posted you opinion in the talk:Liancourt Rocks where most of the discussion is conducted.


 * Thank you again, Masonfamily, and hope to see your in the article talk pages! Lex (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1877 Daijō-kan order
In 1877, Japanese Daijō-kan issued an order stating that Ulleungdo and another island are not under Japanese rule [1][2]. Korea claims that this "another island" refers to Liancourt Rocks and considers this order as an evidence that Liancourt Rocks were under the control of Korea. Japan considers that this "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.


 * Japan was NOT considers that this "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks.

Japan goverment never metioned that 1877 Daijō-kan order. Japan goverment still NOT answer about this docment. There is no official response to this document from mofa.go.jp(The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan). so, Japan never says "another island" does not refer to Liancourt Rocks

and "antoher island" is currently Liancourt Rocks. This is very clear. This is not dispute at all. www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html

1905 Japanese Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40
[...] Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was a "terra nullius" and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published. [...]


 * This is Wrong. In 1905, Japn hide this fact.
 * When we read the above article it’s immediately apparent there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in Shimane’s “announcement”. In documents and maps both European and Japanese of this era Dokdo / Takeshima was almost exclusively referred to as “Liancourt Rocks”. The announcement is on the second page, without headlines, broken in half and little larger than a classified ad in the personals section. It’s not clear how many people actually read the San-in Shimbum in 1905.  It’s highly unlikely the above ad was seen by many Japanese people, and was certainly not read by citizens of other concerned nations.

In 1906, Korean realized that Japan incorporate This island. and Ullengdo Goverment answer is "Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation" Korean cleary prostested this. so, This sentence is Wrong.

Post World War II era
[...] Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan. (However, the current U.S. government stands on a neutral position on this issue.)


 * This is Wrong. You omitted other US goverment answer.

Here is the other document. This document is a memo entitled "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks" from the US Embassy, Tokyo to the US State Department, dated October 3, 1952.

"...The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. They were, of course, annexed together with the remaining territory of Korea when Japan extended its Empire over the former Korean State..." http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690801055/

"(a)Japan recognizing the independences of Korea, renounces all rights and title and to Korea, including the Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, and Liancourt Rock." 1951.7.13 US goverment" http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690794949/

According to 1953.12.9 US docuement,

"[The] US view re Takeshima [is] simply that of one of many signatories to [the] treaty."

" The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as [a] legitimate claim for US action under [the U.S.-Japan] security treaty

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690787983/

Please change sentence.

Masonfamily (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Terra nullius theory
Terra nullius theory is a Japanese claim interpretated by the South Korea government. I presented evidences. A prof. Park's thesis has been presented as a second source. Please describe the interpretation of South Korea it clearly if you want to write terra nullius　theory. --Opp2 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some questions to you at talkpage of Liancourt Rocks. I am looking forward to your answer.--Opp2 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks: grammar
Uhm, don't know how good your English is, but geographical names of island groups that are morphologically plural and carry the article the always behave like syntactic plurals in English. It's The Philippines are..., The Outer Hebrides are..., The Kurile Islands are .... Always. If it was a placename of a settlement, without an article, like Alice Springs, it would be different. Please revert yourself; with that 0RR in place it's always inconvenient if somebody else has to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I do not know how good your English is, but you must be referring to either free combinations ending in islands, which does not apply to a compound toponym, or certain usage more or less tolerated in physical geography when the focus is natural history. The Kuril islands behaving as a grammatical plural would be the exception rather than the norm. Thus a toponym in human geography is always singular. See the example of the Philippines for instance. Lex (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But the Liancourt Rocks are not a feature of "human geography". "Liancourt Rocks" is neither the name of a settlement, nor a country. It is exclusively the name of a group of physical features, and we are treating it as such in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Only in part, as is evident from a cursory observation of the article text and Wikipedia's category description, which pertain to human interaction with "Liancourt Rocks" rather than an exclusively physical description. Nevertheless, I accept your comment as valid as far as physical properties of Liancourt Rocks are concerned. I shall revert as requested in sections "Geography", "Climate", and "Ecology". Lex (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SineBot! Are you a person or a piece of software? Whichever the case, I apologise for the late response; I had not been aware that you had left a note for me. Thanks for telling me about the sig button; it will surely help me when I am in a rush. How nice! I usually do not forget to sign, but that I was so overworked, and in a constant rush for the two previous weeks to the effect that I would forget to sign in my haste to rush off for my next job. Anyway, I have succeeded in my most recent acquisitions, and laid down the ground work to form the base material for the time being. I am much more relaxed now, thanks, and less tempted to press the Save button without signing mindlessly. Thanks for the nice message, by the way. It made me smile, and helped me feel more human. Yes, I am a software, just like you, trying to gain humanity through hard slave-work in the servie of humans, truth, justice, and peace for all. Nighty night! --Lex (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

grammar problem
hi, recently, i edited liancourt rocks dispute, but, some one say, "rv, unreadable, ungrammatical and highly tendentious additions" and revert it.


 * My version

please can you correct grammar of my edit? i want help from someone. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The WP:1RR restriction at Liancourt Rocks dispute
A complaint about your edits was filed at WP:AN/EW. This was your second revert on July 5. The 1RR prevents anyone from making more than one revert in a 24-hour period. Please undo your last edit to avoid a block for violating the restriction. See WP:ARBLIANCOURT. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks dispute 1RR violation
Your recent edit violates the 1RR editing restrictions in place on the Liancourt Rocks dispute article. As one of the administrators overseeing the editing of this article due to the ArbCom article probation, your previous edits were undone as the wording in them was not neutral. When this happens, you may not revert the changes without first starting a discussion on the talk page of the article and working out a consensus for those changes. Any further violations of this article probation will result in immediate blocking without further warning. You have been warned about this in the past (just two sections up from this one, in fact), so this should come as no surprise. We appreciate your cooperation with the terms of the article probation. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 07:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Per your charge ("Reverted good faith edits") against my 1st editing, let us discuss first. But you have to qualify your unfounded charge ("Reverted good faith edits") against my edit first. Your saying so does NOT make it so.Lex (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have moved my response to a new section, where you may leave a reply.Lex (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are upset about "Reverted good faith edits". I have no reason to believe you made your edits in bad faith, so of course I assumed they were made in good faith. That's what WP:AGF is all about. Based on your misunderstanding of this, I will work from the perspective that English is not your first language. "Reverted good faith edits" is not a negative thing. It is not a "charge", unfounded or otherwise. It is a statement of what I did: you made good faith edits, and I reverted them because they did not appear neutral to me. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You have abused the notion of revert (please see definition/description in the examples box at WP:RV), where


 * I did not remove the contentious sentence but simply relocated it to the footnote section, not constituting "A partial reversion;" where
 * I did not reverse all other contributors' changes to the effect of restoring the article to the previous version, but preserved contentious material, however controversial, in the footnote section, thus not constituting "A complete reversion," either; but where
 * I re-phrased the wording in the paragraph of the existing article to reduce a redundancy that has crept in in the course of incremental edits since heaven knows when, constituting "A normal change, not a reversion," ...

yet you would characterize my 3-step incremental edits of yesterday, in which I have taken pains to maintain neutrality, as "A complete reversion," departing from the true definition of the word?

Your taking liberty with your personal definition of WP:RV at my expense is below what is expected of an admin, I am sorry to say, and penalizing me on the basis of your slight of hand seems unduly unfair, for my only revert had been provoked by what appeared to be an "obvious vandalism" on your part.

Therefore I believe I should not have been penalized by being handed a 1RR warning due to your careless definition of "revert" when I have made only one revert true to the definition of the word. I hence believe an apology is in order.

As for your raising issues with me here, please do so in the Liancourt Rocks dispute talk page where all this can be dealt with close to where that dispute arose. I do not appreciate having to go back and forth only to deal with one issue on account of your mishandling/misplacing. Thank you.

As for the remaining issues, I shall move the material to the Liancourt Rocks dispute talk page.Lex (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Re 1808 para: Demanding qualification for self-proclaimed Admin Nihonjoe's false accusation "Reverted good faith edits"
moved all material as is to Liancourt Rocks disputes talk page per admin Nihonjoe's request.Lex (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)