User talk:Aocduio

Hello Aocduio,

I see you are blanking and redirecting a large amount of article's for being inconsistent. Due the large amount of them, can i ask you for some more detail regarding this? Blanking and redirecting a large amount of article's without apparent consensus is generally taken something that shouldn't be done. Instead, it may be better to discuss such a large amount of changes as a related wiki project so more editors can see and discuss this.

By the way, i left a quick note on the administrators noticeboard of incidents regarding this as well. Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Korean Wikipedia, Hwandan Gogi contents just the rise of korean nationalism. Ruler of Buyeo article also redirects into Buyeo article in Korean Wikipedia. By the same token, I'm just to follow the historical regulations.---Aocduio (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my question from ANI, do you have clear evidence that Hwandan Gogi are a hoax and thus those articles are hoaxes? Even if those individuals are fictional, articles about them can still be of value, even for limited purposes. However, saying "According to Korean Wikipedia, some articles of rulers of Buyeo is not incongruent, and Hwandan Gogi contents just the rise of korean nationalism" is at best cryptic and unclear. Otherwise, I will be reverting those redirects, starting a section on the Hwandan Gogi at WP:RSN and then listing them for deletion as hoaxes if that's appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aocduio, I removed your speedy deletion request from the above article. The reason you gave, "This contents rejected by formally Korean historians, and it is so improper in wikipedia." is not covered by the speedy deletion criteria. The article is referenced properly, and is presumed accurate according to the referencing guidelines. If you have a valid reason for deletion other than those listed at Wikipedia:CSD, please open a deletion discussion using the instructions at WP:AfD. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of tributaries of Imperial China . Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. [Removal of cited descriptions.] (diff) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you think that fulfil the necessary neutral position?--Aocduio (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of tributaries of Imperial China#Qing Dynasty. The number of missions are described there. Please expand the article without removing the cited descriptions. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, In List of tributaries of Imperial China#List of tributaries section, Does not described except Korea.--Aocduio (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, pleae expand the other countries in List of tributaries of Imperial China#List of tributaries section as described as "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Please expand the other countries your own basis. If not, You are definitely feel repugnance to Korea.--Aocduio (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an obligation to do so. I just edit what I want to do. My edit was inspired by the removal of Silla [1] by User:Coconut91. This kind of vandalism results in an adverse effect. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the addition of the numbers of tribute missions are nothing anti-Korean activity as you feel. If you think so, is the author of the source anti-Korean activist?. ――

Aocduio -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.

Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves.

On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:

A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.

1. Leave it at its current name?
2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.

B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.

In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit please. I did not restore the passage about Syngman Rhee. I simply updated the source link to tuoitre.vn. You are deleting a reference which refers to the previous passage, and leaving the whole paragraph unreferenced. cab (call) 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from revertng actions, if there is a disagreement, please resolve it outside of getting to what may be an edit war on your part. --ForgottenHistory (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your edit summary here:

• diff 03:59, 25 January 2011 Aocduio (39,615 bytes) (IMO, Historiographer's edit should be measure as an appropriate acts in this situation)

Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Korea under Japanese rule, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Joseon Dynasty has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Please use talk page first Oda Mari (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is formerly settled topic. Don't mention it again with your derogation point toward Korea. In addition, Korea's status after invasion of 1636 is described below section. Those concepts not only overlap but come into conflict with each other. Therefore, You should not be necessarily push these words into introduction.--Aocduio (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not settled. Here is the talk on the recent addition of "sovereign state". Please join in the talk. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use one account.Imbonwwwww (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]