User talk:Phonemonkey

Chongryon / Zainichi Koreans
Ah, good to hear... I was afraid it wouldn't make it into the intended article, hehe ^_^ Rōnin 15:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The evidence
The evidence is here. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689 (Date of Report: October 1, 1944). And read citations and note agein. Tropicaljet 10:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the evidence for not Japanese women's high paid in article comfort women. Please read it. In this report an average month a girl(not Japanese) would gross about fifteen hundred yen. This is about 7500000yen (or $60000) in converted monetary value of today. This is already written in note. Tropicaljet 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort women
This one seems impossible do something about. The dear professor keeps on canvassing the article on his blog, and he keeps on suggesting Asahi, BBC, NYT are just poorly researched. It's down to "westerners lie", isn't it. As long as he keeps on like that, there is no solution, is there? I'm not even gonna try anymore, but I do sincerely wish you the best of luck. Mackan 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I bet you probably know this, but the term 従軍慰安婦 is not only used by Asahi, as the good professor suggests. It's also used by Mainichi as well as Yomiuri (do a quick search on 慰安婦 on either newspaper's homepage if you need links). The only newspaper which seems to actually avoid the term is Sankei. I myself have decided to refrain from taking part in the discussion, but it's my hope you will not bend to the Japanese users wish. Mackan 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't guessed you were Japanese, actually. But it makes me happy to hear. Yes, I agree the revisionist claims too should be given an appropriate amount of space in the article, but it has to be carefully balanced. Largest problem was how Ikeda et al would remove all claims which weren't revisionist. He ought to have a look at WP:TRUTH... Mackan 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And btw, any help on the yakiniku article (actually my "point of entrance" into this entire conflict) would be much appreciated. ShinjukuXYZ has made his mind up on what the article should look like and he/she won't take no for answer. Thank you. Mackan 23:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh god, I know about ShinjukuXYZ and yakiniku (please see talk:Japanese cuisine. It's difficult to deal with an editor who refuses to engage in a debate but I've tried to come to a compromise with the help of User:Endroit. Funny how we both got sucked in through exactly the same food related article!Phonemonkey 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactor of your "Summary of debates so far" comments
I hope you don't mind but I've taken the liberty of refactoring your excellent "Summary of debates so far" section on the Comfort women article Talk page. I didn't change any of the content, I just broke it apart into sub-sections so we could all reply in a more organized fashion. If this isn't okay, please feel free to revert or undo my edits!

And your comments seem to be very good and a pretty accurate summary of the discussion. Thanks! --ElKevbo 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks and no of course I don't mind, it's a good idea!Phonemonkey 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop parsonal attack
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Ikeda is every inch a authority of this affair. I think you should hold him in esteem some more, and should not do personal attack. Tropicaljet 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tropicaljet, please cease the bad faith accusations of personal attacks. Please read up on WP:NPA.Mackan 19:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling someone who encourages meatpuppetry "someone who encourages meatpuppetry" isn't personal attack. Asking someone who publically declared that he has no intention of keeping to Wikipedia rules, the reasons why he thinks he is above the rules, isn't personal attack. Pointing out to someone who rants and raves about illiteracy and ignorance of other editors while posting personal blogs as his source that he is not helping himself isn't personal attack. If he wants others to hold him in esteem then perhaps he ought to start behaving like a grown-up. Thank you. Phonemonkey 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2channel
 The Joji Obara article has also been canvassed on 2channel (apparently there's a whole series of threads called "朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ", so I bet they've probably canvassed just about EVERY article which has something to do with Korea/Japan). Especially this comment was interesting:

"Joji Obara に別の朝鮮人が参戦.

うざすぎる

Phonemonkeyとかゆうこのチョン、Comfort Women 編集しまくってる履歴あり. "

I guess we're both Koreans(!). Keep up the good work. Mackan 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! Thanks for that. Good old 2channelers...as predictable as lab rats.Phonemonkey 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Koror-Babeldaob_Bridge
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Pgdn963 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The template which I removed was a false semi-protection template which was placed by you on a page which was not semi-protected. Vandalism states that "bad-faith placing of afd, delete, sprotected, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria" constitutes vandalism. You're the one who will be blocked if you continue. Phonemonkey 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Talk:Koror-Babeldaob Bridge
Well, I certainly don't see a need for two articles on the same bridge in the same location. It'd be easy enough to simply redirect and add an opening at the start explaining the name. It might even be reasonable to use the new name instead of the old, but that's a question for another time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I think which name to choose would be a crucial issue though. Phonemonkey 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my advice is to go to WP:BRIDGE and see what the existing consensus is there, or if there isn't one, solicit their help in forming one. FrozenPurpleCube 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, didn't know about the wikiproject, much appreciated.Phonemonkey 07:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I think barnstars are really gay and unnecessary, but with all the "vandalism"-tags the vandals themselves are posting on your talk page, I think this is in order. Keep up the good work. Mackan 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back, and thanks. As far as the warnings posted above go, since the person who posted is unable to show what they are referring to, they're only shooting themselves in the foot. Phonemonkey 16:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please make the rule.
If the rule is not made, editors will write Korean Japanese, Zainichi Korean, and Japanse without permission.

--Azukimonaka 16:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A Parents are Koreans. A Japanese nationality is owned.
 * B One of parents are Koreans. A Japanese nationality is owned.
 * C The Korean naturalized in Japan is parents from Korea. A Japanese nationality is owned.
 * D The nationality is Korea though lived in Japan.
 * E The nationality is Korea though it was born in Japan.
 * F Person who is born in Korea, and naturalized from Korea in Japan
 * G Person who is born in Japan, and naturalized from Korea in Japan


 * Thanks for your post - I have replied on Talk:Joji Obara. Phonemonkey 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for Youe Advice
The discussion about Joji Obara became very complex. I do not understand the discussion. Therefore, I leave from the article on Joji Obara. Thank you. --Azukimonaka 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

!
I was actually aware of the fact that I was canvassing. I don't really care when it comes to achieving correct motives. I am willing to do anything, including humiliating myself to do what I think is the right thing to do. Thanks for pointing it out, though. I'll try to avoid it to the best of my ability. Odst 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Format fix
Phonemonkey,

I just edited your talk page to fix the poorly formatted Ed Poor barnstar that was left on your page (I almost just removed it altogether as it seems it may be an "attack star," but I figured fixing the formatting would be better). It was obscuring the above arbitration notice. Sorry to mess with your talk page if you somehow meant it to be that way. --Cheers, Komdori 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration statement
I read your contribution to the arbitration. Thanks for spending some time on it. I happen to agree with you that there are already some inklings of progress all around there. In my opinion, "two steps forward, one steps back," is kind of acceptable and to be expected when working on a consensus driven project like this one. One question I had for you--in part of your statement, you said, "As I said, my opinion above, and my observation that LactoseTL and Komdori are good-faith, POV editors, is based solely on what I have experienced since I joined recently,..." Did you mean to say "POV editors"? It seemed a little bit at odds with the rest of your statement; I wasn't exactly sure what you meant. — LactoseTI T 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! Thanks for spotting it - as you probably guessed, I meant "NPOV editors". Phonemonkey 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Phonemonkey. They probably are misspellings... Does "civiized" mean "civilized", and "to stess" as "to stress"? And LactoseIT, LactoseTL is LactoseTI. :) --Nightshadow28 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nightshadow28, my carelessness...and sorry LactoseTI!Phonemonkey 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks
I don't see anything, and again you failed to grasp the complete picture. I gave reasons why before making that post. (Wikimachine 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes, you're right - at the same time it would depend, b/c consensus means that "all users agree to go along with the changes even if they disagree with them" (I have hard time understanding what it means - I can guess that revert war is implied to be a measuring device of consensus)


 * Exact quote from WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.


 * However, I doubt that other editors would say stuffs like the JPOV "group" I've been talking about. I hope that this shouldn't encourage some ppl to make sock puppet accounts. (Wikimachine 03:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Not really - again I'd like to be cautious on these stuffs, when the editors participate in the discussion ïn the "us" vs. "them" ideology, the framework of thinking & reasoning behind the discussion becomes inherently flawed. (Wikimachine 16:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Don't "exactly" me, buddy, I know what I'm talking about. Already Komdori & LactoseTI are admitted friends (claimed so @ a sock puppetry case) & then Opp2 constantly uses those sock puppets accounts & new IP addresses. (Wikimachine 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Sorry, it wasn't offensive, but I'm pushy-phobic. For example, when I say XXX, Komdori & LactoseTI are like, "exactly, that's why it's YYY" & immediately they make YYY edits to the article. When I revert, they say something similar to "you agreed" & "consensus established" & "doesn't matter if you disagree now". (Wikimachine) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We need more admins around, & more outside editors. That'd get rid of the "us" vs. "them". The very presence of a reliable & neutral admin make ppl rethink about what they're doing.
 * I'd personally never accept that proposal from Opp2 b/c it is framed to emphasize the questionability of S. Korea's legitimacy in its control over Dokdo. I'd expect compromises from neutral editors. (Wikimachine 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes you do, but just 1 is not enough. Furthermore, I thought I had perceived some POVness in you (i.e. even if you're an outsider, you might just be another POV like lactose & komdori - there'd be no difference), but right now I forgot why & even suspected you as a sock puppet (I don't think so now, you talk differently from others & approach diff). I don't think you're as bad as the other guys but you still failed to object to obvious POV in Opp2 & Komdori's proposals.


 * Wikipedia should offer both viewpoints but that doesn't mean that a less accepted viewpoint should be emphasized as much as the dominant one (i.e. terrorists = heroes to extremist Muslims & criminals to some other ppl, but "criminals" is more accepted") While Opp2's proposal was never anything like that, the arrangement of the words clearly emphasized the illegitimacy of S. Korea's control over Liancourt Rocks in that (S. Korea claimed Liancourt Rocks, and then controlled it). Honestly, tell me how Opp2's proposal is as neutral as my version of the intro at User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks.


 * Also, I'm really sick of these POV ppl like Opp2 who don't do anything except emphasize. Look at my work at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I could easily have said that the Koreans completely annihilated the Japanese, but I didn't. Why? B/c to me the facts are interesting so I just wrote what I read & in process I managed to add all viewpoints including Japanese & Chinese. I'm planning to do the same to the Liancourt Rocks article (fill it up with facts & citations). See how the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) now has so little POV disputes & vandalisms? All b/c there is no POV to begin with & facts are all there that no side can complain. Same can happen to the Liancourt Rocks article. (Wikimachine 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC))


 * In fact, I urge you to do the same. Nothing can be ever more satisfying than an article that you've worked on that used to be all crappy & heavily fought over becomes a featured article. (Wikimachine 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Let me post here...

It is biased because JPOV editors are simply using NPOV as an excuse to reduce Korea to a mere "claim" when more than half of the world knows its Korean and that Japan can't do much but sweat about it. Korea occupies and controls it. That is not POV because its a fact. Yet, some editors like Lactose or Opp think thats POV and have to change it to something supposedly NPOV, when it really isn't. Thats the sad thing about the argument. The admins cannot see how biased Lactose or Opp is because they are screened by NPOV, which everyone knows as the god of rules here on wikipedia. Good friend100 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll edit here on your talkpage, Phonemonkey. I only added two both places in case any one of you missed what I was trying to say. Good friend100 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

about terra nullius
There is the following as a method of acquiring the title(so called ownership and sovereignty) of territory on the international law. The place where these acquisition acts is not performed become terra nullius. Occupation is a means of acquisition and the maintenance of the title, and not the title. However, the level of a necessary occupation changes by the situation.(See Judicial precedent of Clipperton) The insistence of Japanese Government is as follows.
 * first effective occupation (in the case of terra nullius)
 * Peaceful and continuous effective occupation(in the case of the other countries have already had the title)
 * Cession(in the case of the other countries have already had the title)
 * "there is no evidence that Korea had ever had effective control over Takeshima around the time of the promulgation of the Imperial Ordinance. Therefore, it is considered that Korea had never established sovereignty over Takeshima"

Japan argues that Korea did not acquire the title. However, Japan does not say that the title of Japan has not been approved either. It is possible to interpret it as follows.
 * "Japan acquired the title by first effective occupation in Edo period. The Japanese title didnot move to another country because another country(Korea) had not effective control and Japan didnot cession."

It is uncertain whether the activity in Edo period is considered acquire of title and the islands was terra nullius or not at 1905. It might be only ICJ that this is decided. --Opp2 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Judicial precedent of Clipperton The decision After all, France acquired, and maintained her title without occupation. No occupation and terra nullius are different. --Opp2 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * France tried to land on clipperton island but failed in 1858.
 * France published the article of having become a French territory in the newspaper of Hawaii in 1858.
 * Afterwards, France did not occupy.
 * Mexico insisted on owning in 1897.
 * Mexico did not exercise sovereignty until 1897.
 * France established sovereignty by the newspaper ad in 1858.
 * Afterwards, France did not display a clear will to abandon sovereignty.

about the matter
I'm sorry for my speculation over your identity. And I really appreciate your effort to reduce my fixed images toward 朝鮮人 in Japanese, but the timing seemed a little weird to me. As soon as Sennen gorosi was blocked for 48 hours, an unexpected visitor came to me out of nowhere with also the unexpected matter. At that time, I was so nervous and upset at "You-Know-Who", of course not Mochi.

I thought I can't deal with the user in my ability, (the man has just ridiculed my English when his assumptions are blocked in conversation. In addition, the user is the one who triggered me to do something related to Korea-Japan articles. Until seeing some POV assertions by the user over Ahn Jung-geun, Kim Ki-duk, Dog meat, Empress Myeongseong, I've been mainly uploading and linking images from commons to English wiki.), so I wanted to ask somebody into Korean-related article for help. In the process, I read the claim about possible socket puppets and then there are two people I've encountered. These are my long excuse. If you felt unpleasant due to my suspicion, I apologize to you. --Appletrees 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

An edit in the Koreans in Japan article
I felt that this edit in the article now titled Koreans in Japan could be improved.

From "Avoid statements that will date quickly":
 * "Phrases to avoid include "recently", "in modern times", "now considered", "is soon to become", and "the sixties"; instead use phrases such as "as of October 2001" or "the 1960s." In many cases, such statements are also more precise."

Not only does it help the reader know the time frame better, it makes the article read more like an encyclopedia by sounding like it was based on more precise research. —Tokek 13:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yakiniku goon
Hi Phone, you still active? There's another Japanese goon going on about the 日式肉焼 (or whatever it's called). Sad part is, this one could probably contribute something positive to the article, but is unfortunately way to obsessed with his/her own version. I've incorporated the user's edits but apparently it's not enough unless it's the exact wording he first put in. Sigh. If you've a few minutes to spare, could you just pop over and let us both know which version you think is better, so we have some sort of a consensus (nobody else seems to care much about that article). -- Mackan talk 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Mackan. Thanks for the heads up. I have a feeling that I might have kicked up more trouble than you were expecting by opposing the inclusion of the chinese term. Having looked at your version, I think yours is definitely a better version, and it looks like the eventual compromise would be pretty similar to what you've suggested. I just reckon that the only way we can get this user to agree to the compromise is if he can get him to spit out his reasonings so that he can see that we are willing to work with it, not against it. Fingers crossed. Phonemonkey 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way if any editors happen to be reading this the debate in question is at talk:Yakiniku and your contribution would very much be appreciated. Phonemonkey 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks closed
The above arbitration case has closed, and has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. All parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for Contributions Liancourt Rocks dispute. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree, please discuss at discussion page before change, Thanks. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how I managed to violate the 3RR rule when I've only made one edit? Also, how are WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS relevant to my edit, when the edit I made was removal of material?Phonemonkey (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion Related to Liancourt Rocks
An arbitrator has started a motion here which will change the current article probation of Liancourt Rocks into a discretionary sanction on all pages related to Liancourt Rocks. You are notified because you were a party to the original arbitration case. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)