Husond

Re. [[1]] Thanks! PGWG 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a note to thank you for keeping an open mind and taking the time to look at it again. You must have some guts to close that one. Like you seem to have observed, regardless of the way you close it you're going to get a few people who aren't that happy with it when you have that many people expressing opinions. —LactoseTI^T 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are only happy that the article got moved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.97.220 (talk • contribs).

Someone did this. I don't understand the edit (??), but reverted it anyway. Have a beautiful day!   PeaceNT 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, don't mention it. Btw, it wasn't belated congrats, you already congratulated me a few days back (haha!)  . Take care, PeaceNT 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The checkuser confirmation that I, Davidpx, Lion369 are sockpuppets has been upturned. I strongly ask that you reconsider your decision. Please check the following link for details:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639 Cydevil38 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm currently re-reviewing. Thanks for the info. Húsönd 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a long time editor on this article, I was just surprised to see the decision overturned. All I can see is there was no consensus. Then, after seeing that it would be not possible to move the article to Liancourt Rocks, those editors voted for Liancourt Rocks, mainly Komdori and LactoseIT, demoted every single possible vote for Dokdo and keep insisting their one-sided arguments. Recent news article regarding the vote in a Korean newspaper caused some newly signed and not registered editors to vote for Dokdo, but they were removed well before those accusations and demoting of editors voted for Dokdo began. I'm wondering how much you heard from editors for Dokdo before you overturned your decision. It happened so hastefully and I don't find any sound reason for that. Please let me know where you decision is based on. Ginnre 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've completed the data. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data. Thanks. (Wikimachine 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

I responded there but thought it might be worth noting here to speed things along. Actually, Wikimachine, he asked if there was any data supporting massive sockpuppetry of meatpuppetry on the Liancourt Rocks side, and you have very subjectively analysed the Dokdo group instead. Ultimately, he mentioned concerns with NPOV as well, and you may wish to consider in your analysis that few Dokdo voters had any basis in any policy, just signing or exclaiming, "It's our territory! We get to name it!" or some such thing, which is not how the policies work on naming.

I think he was asking for something clearcut, like a sockpuppetry case or even stronger evidence along those lines that there was massive fraud on the one side. There wasn't, so there isn't. --Cheers, Komdori 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm re-reviewing my closure yet again. However, I antecipate that I shall not overturn my decision once more. The outcome of this discussion was already complicated before the outspread meat/sockpuppetry accusations from both sides. Didn't get any simpler afterwards. One thing is for certain, the outcome falls right in the borderline of any decision and therefore the final decision will, with regret, be at my discretion. Whatever my decision is it will cause some users to be unhappy so I'll naturally have Wikipedia policies back it, and at this time WP:NPOV is heavily weighing in favor of Liancourt Rocks. Húsönd 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, NPOV was the biggest thing among the editors to be discussed or disputed and there was not a consensus about NPOV of the title (28:43). It was not to be simply determined by one person as you did. I don't know whether you have such a authority to decide by yourself, but were it to be decided by one person like this, why would we discuss and try to bring a consensus? Then why did you hear from Komdori and LactoseIT only and didn't wait to hear couple of other opinions? My impression is, your decision is strongly influenced by those two editors. I doubt you ever read a recent article in TIME magazine about this islets where you don't find the term 'Liancourt Rocks' and local english papers usually don't use the term 'Liancourt Rocks'. That is current tendency and the term is a relic from imperialistic expasionism of the 19th century. Anyone is reluctant to use such a term these days except some Japanese people to undermine the status quo of the islets. By any measure, it was too hasteful and the decision was too abrupt. Ginnre 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't know if you're aware but the odd two weeks or so maybe I redesigned my userpage and used yours as a base, using a lot of your code and replacing the colors and the text. I wanted to tell you about this and (because of a recent comment made) wanted to ask you if you minded at all. If you have any problem with it I will certainly change the page, and in any event I'll credit you. Thank you. DoomsDay349 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! In my RFA a user noted that my "userpage is not your own" and I wanted to make sure that you were cool with me doing this. Thanks again! DoomsDay349 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have a full understanding of the cyrillic script. Can you provide a transliteration of "Ghazi Mullah" on this page here? Thank you.Bakaman 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know that you are reviewing over your move of "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks". I am requesting that you move the article back for several reasons.

First, we were still discussing over the article's name and the poll was not considered heavily as Parsecboy put it that it was "ruined". The poll was attacked by an enormous number of KPOV editors and then sockpuppets of "Liancourt Rocks" came and also polled. They were all removed. Your move was, in my opinion, quite abrupt, and you did not consult the rest of the participating editors.

Second, you only listened to LactoseTI and his list of sockpuppets of the Korean side. He did not put emphasis on the Liancourt Rocks side. There were many sockpuppets on the Liancourt Rocks and most of their votes were removed. However, the impression he gave was that the Korean side was just ruining the poll.

Third, about the Chosun Ilbo article that stated the massive fighting in Wikipedia, this was controversial too. User:Komdori put this on the talk page for what I saw as just more provocative issues. The writer of the article apparantly came here and made all the sockpuppets. I doubt that this would happen and I see it as a straw man sockpuppet just to make the Dokdo side look bad. There would have been Japanese newspapers and Japanese articles on a POV perspective as well that claim Liancourt Rocks though none of those articles were put on the talk page or discussed about.

Fourth, in the sockpuppet checkcase Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639, I feel that this was not a fair act. User:Davidpdx has been repeatedly arguing that he is not a sockpuppet and wrongly accused. I believe that this is not fair how only Korean side editors were accused of making sockpuppets.

Fifth, the poll was already in a controversial state by the time you reviewed it. It really was not accurate and many editors that voted for "Dokdo" did not simply vote because "Dokdo is under Korean control". There were a number of good reasons before the poll. Also, the poll was not in an obvious consensus towards "Liancourt Rocks" as sockpuppets damaged the results.

I feel that you did not completely see the case at the talk page of Liancourt Rocks or think more on the decision. I am not accusing you of your decision and I am sure you did that accordingly to what you saw and what other editors commented on your talk page about.

I understand that your decision is under fire right now and many editors are complaining of the decision. I only would like to ask that you fully reconsider your move and understand both sides. Thank you Good friend100 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you have a chance, could you review [[2]]?

Senkaku Islands is a similiar article to Liancourt Rocks. Instead of Korea administering Dokdo while Japan claims it, Senkaku islands is administered by Japan but claimed by China. There was a poll to move the article to "Pinnacle Islands" (an english name) or keep "Senkaku Islands". The poll was affected by Liancourt Rocks and whether it would be moved to "Liancourt Rocks" or "Dokdo".

Senkaku islands was kept because of several reasons including its usage and the administering country also affected editors' decisions as well. Senkaku islands and "Dokdo" both have similiar reasons as to why both were kept and not moved in previous polls. I agree that "Liancourt Rocks" should be consistent with "Senkaku Islands" in terms of naming. Good friend100 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reporte the Patrio user for his edits to WWE One Night Stand, those Help Desk edits were made after I had reported him. TJ Spyke 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

My bad, I had assumed he wasn't blocked based on your comment at AIV. TJ Spyke 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply