User talk:Objectiveye

Hello

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Printing press. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.
if you continue to insert unsourced edits based upon the assertion that movable type implies a printing press, contrary to all the secondary sources (and, for that matter, the illustrations and the descriptions in the primary sources) , you will be eventually be blocked. DGG (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my reference. Then you left me a note stating not to put in non-cited material. I'll leave you another reference; http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/printing_3.htm

The museum in France has the oldest metal moveable print, a book which was Korean from the Koryo dynasty. It wasn't wood, it wasn't clay and it wasn't just a moveable print. It was a metal moveable print.

That is why if you look in English or western history books, Gutenberg's printing press invention always has in as a footnote or start off by stating in "the west" the first metal moveable printing press was by Gutenberg. The only possible question to ask about Asian metal moveable printing press which was around 200 years before is why it didn't have the impact in Asia as the printing press had in Europe. Please don't delete things with out reading the references http://www.koreanculture.org/06about_korea/symbols/11printing_heritage.htm --Objectiveye 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied at length on my talk page--the only problem is that you've got the word wrong. Press is the large piece of machinery pressing or pushing the paper against the inked type or the inked metal plate or wooden block. Otherwise, yes, you understand things very well. DGG (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance the same person as 4.23.83.100? What you say and do is very similar to that of 4.23.83.100. Please just say "yes" or "no". If yes, do not use the IP anymore. Do not forget to log in, please.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you reported as a Suspected sock puppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/4.23.83.100 by Michael Friedrich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/4.23.83.100

i think you must know this. Manacpowers (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I want you to know, first off, that we care about you as a colleague and fellow contributor to Wikipedia. That is why, if the account Objectiveye belongs to you, you really need to come out and say so right now on this page. A checkuser request has been filed on you. If you want to continue your Wikipedia editing, you really, really need to come and talk to us as soon as possible. I will stand up for you and ask the other editors to treat you with mercy and fairness. But if the checkuser report comes back and shows that you are Objectiveye--before you come and talk to us about it--then I don't think I will be able to do much to help you--my hands will probably be tied. Please come and explain your situation to us, or I'm afraid you are in danger of being severely blocked from Wikipedia. I really don't want that to happen. So please--I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Talk to me on your SSP page, talk to me on my talk page, or just talk to me on this page; but please talk to me. You have had plenty of chances to prevent this issue from becoming a problem for you. I don't know how many more chances I can get for you. I'll try to buy you some time to think about it and respond, but I can't guarantee I can get it for you. It's always better for you if you tell someone than it is for you to be found out by someone else. I hope you will make the decision that will allow us to continue to enjoy the benefit of your talents here at Wikipedia. Your contributions are appreciated. Please respond so we can work this out.

And, if you are Objectiveye, then you didn't have to hide your identity on Talk:Kumdo. Your comments were well thought out and quite valid to me. You don't have to pretend to be someone else to make others appreciate your input. We appreciate your input no matter what your username is. That's what's great about Wikipedia: it's not the number of people who say something is right that matters; it's the sensibility and verifiability of the points you make that counts. Please know we care about you and if you need anything at all concerning Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to talk to me on my talk page. That's what your fellow editors are here for. SunDragon34 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to me! Let me know if you have any questions or problems. I'm glad we were able to talk to each other. Happy editing! SunDragon34 (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am teaching User:SunDragon34 about how to be a Wikipedia administrator. I hope you don't mind if I jump in here. Situations of house mates/co-workers and sock puppetry/meat puppetry/tag team editing can be indistinguishable because in all of those cases the editors will appear to be connected by technical evidence For the purposes of Wikipedia, a group of editors who edit towards the same point of view, and are otherwise indistinguishable from one another can be viewed as a single editor for the purposes of applying policy.

I recommend that you and your close associates not support each other in editorial disputes. Tag team editing tends to subvert consensus and may provide an unfair advantage over other editors who might not agree with your editorial position. Wikipedia has a very large number of articles. I am sure you all can happily find things to edit, while avoiding tag team editing. Please review the results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/4.23.83.100. Jehochman ^Talk 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand. It seems that you don't listen to me. I always don't. Did you see where the {{FACT}} was located? It is right after "because," not after "Korea had a longer history than Japan." Whether Korea has a longer history than Japan is not in dispute. It is true that Japanese historical records start around 100BC. But it does not prove that the Committee did not mention Gojoseon because Korea has a longer history than Japan. Did you understand? PLEASE READ THE SUMMARY BEFORE YOU REVERT EDITS! You almost always don't listen to me carefully and say something irrelevant. I NEVER said Korea hadn't have swords and swordsman before Japanese occupation but you kept telling me to prove Korea did not have swords...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You STILL don't understand! "It pointed out that in an age when Korea had established its first Kingdom but Japan had yet to come up with a national name and an era when there was a flourishing culture on the peninsula but Japan did not even have a writing system, there was no possibility that Japan could have dominated any part of Korea. That such a history supported Japanese political goal was a point not lost on the Japanese editors, as they accused Japanese historians of deliberately manipulating the past in order to bolster Japan's political position on the peninsula." It doesn't say anything about the Committee! There are not the word "Korean History Compilation Committee." Which reference are these sentences from? Does it say anything about the Committee? Your references do not prove that the Committee did not refer to Gojoseon because Korea had a longer history than Japan. And the sentence above sounds strange... As hard to understand as your English... Is it really written by an English-speaking person?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This note would be quite belated, but since I requested for checkuser against the sockpuppeter named Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) for his disruption, I'm leaving this pointer Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Michael Friedrich. --Caspian blue 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Caspian blue 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your edits to several articles, and find very intriguing. If you don't like your edits are deleted or reverted by your opponents with absurd reasons like "unexplained edits" for their POV, please use edit summary for your edit for the next time. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You put the information on the page "kumdo" that kumdo and kendo are almost the same "because during the Japanese occupation of Korea all Korean swords and coats of arms were confiscated and destroyed by the Japanese". This seems to have been cited from the book you referred to, 5,000 years of Korean martial arts and Korean impact on Japanese culture: Japan's hidden History. But what do the books actually say? And on what page the information you mentioned is? We need to know where you got the information and what exactly the books say because in order to certify its liability.

By the way, please do not repeat editing over and over again. Please use a preview before you save the page.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since your edits have been challenged and accused by Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs), who seems to be your old opponent, and a banned user Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) in regards to Kumdo and various articles, I let you know the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich. You can give your input to the sockpuppetry investigation case. --Caspian blue 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still convinced that your assessment on the user would be greatly appreciated to resolve questions raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Friedrich. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupting, but please let me say that I cannot believe most of your sources. For example, you claim "the Japanese were originally trained by Koreans and Chinese in sword making as noted by the oldest single-sided curved blade sword is from the Tang dynasty and the fact that sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today.^[1][2]".

I cannot think it is possible. I think everyone knows that it is impossible that sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today. Silla came to distinction in 935. However, according to Katana, "the katana originated in the Muromachi period (1392–1573) as a result of changing battle conditions requiring faster response times".

What does your source actually say? Most information from your source seems unreliable to me. I require you to show us the original sentences of your sources. I cannot help thinking you interpret the information in a very strange way.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet? --Objectiveye (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ignore me. I am asking you show us details of your source. Your quote seem very strange. For example, in Korean Sword, you used Pekche of Korea and the Origin of Yamato Japan as a source of the information that Korean swords are very scarce, since most surviving examples were confiscated and destroyed during the Japanese colonial occupation. However, the book does not contain information about the period during the occupation[1]. Besides, you never tell us which page of the books you quoted the information.

Please tell us which page you got those pieces of information and what exactly the book says if you really have the books and quoted the information properly. If you cannot, I have no choice but to consider your quotes are not proper and to remove them from wikipedia.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask you one more thing. You add the sentence below to several articles using this website as the source.

"Experts still hope Japan will be more forthright in the future and see this limited access as the first step in the right direction."

However, the source does not say anything like "forthright in the future" or "the right direction". I must say most of sentences you have added to Wikipedia are full of your own "interpretation" of the source. Even if the source is a proper one, you cannot add your interpretation to it. I cannot help thinking your edits like this is filled much with your own "interpretation". Does your source really say that sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today? I'm sorry but I cannot believe it. Please tell us what your sources exactly say, without adding any interpretation of yours to it.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the book "hidden history of Japan" and From Paekchae to the origin of Yamato. Even in your Japanese sword section it states that iron weapons works and processing (Japanese swords) that the technique was from Korea/China. We also know that single edge curved blades are present in Tang China and Korea. You can try to update whatever you think is incorrect, but please don't put in anything about Japan transferring the technology in to Korea. Or if you are going to write about how Korean swords were confiscated and the craftsmen died/killed, please don't make it appear as if Korea never had a sword making history and it is just a copy of Japans There is no evidence of this and the Korean and Chinese already had this style of sword. When I read that section of the Korean sword someone was trying to imply that Korean swords are now essentially Japanese, but it is more complex than that.

Also please include the differences between the technique used by the Japanese sword vs the Asian sword techniques in general. Other than how many times to repeat the processess, the book was stating that the technique was essentially the same. We know the Japanese repeated the process to get a more perfect strength for the iron, but the technique for asian swords haven't changed much. As long as the article doesn't go back to that weird Japan influenced the mainland in 1590 stuff, I will look at your post and see if I am ok with your post.

I'm not sure what you are complaining about even the Japanese sword sections say that these techniques were present in Korea and China before Japan has them. And the whole Mongolian invasion/kamkazi incident that set off the wars in Japan was because of the weapons that the Japanese got a partial glimpse of (catapults, iron weapons, etc) caused panic in the Japanese ruling class. Anyways goodluck, hope you are not a sockpuppet. --Objectiveye (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to leave you a note but your locked down. Anyways once you are back up we will follow up together. --Objectiveye (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways read thru page 116 in the book "Korean Impact on Japanese Culture: Japan"s Hidden History" Many of the Japanese swords today that are thought to be japanese were actually forged in Korea and the style these swords were made are the usualy Asian technique.

"Early, as well as current Japanese official history cover up much of this evidence. For example, there is an iron sword in the Shrine of the Puyo Rock Deity in Asuka, Japan which is the third most important historical Shinto shrine. This sword which is inaccessible to the public has a Korean Shamanstic shape and is inscribed with Chinese characters of gold, which include a date corresponding to 369 A.D. At the time, only the most educated elite in the Paekche Kingdom"

and

"Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings" The techniques for making these swords were the same styles from Korea. Asian sword making technique uses many of the same styles as China.

You can try to fix the wording and I will look at it, but please don't try to say that Japans sword making technique has nothing to do with Korea. --Objectiveye (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Paekchae to the origin of yamato Japan --Objectiveye (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question.

Question No.1: Where did you get the information that "Korean swords are very scarce, since most surviving examples were confiscated and destroyed during the Japanese colonial occupation"? Which page of your source says it? And what exactly does the book say?

>>Korea never had a sword making history

I never said such a thing.

>>When I read that section of the Korean sword someone was trying to imply that Korean swords are now essentially Japanese, but it is more complex than that.

That's my line. You talk as if Japanese swords are identical to those of Silla, but it is more complex than that. Japanese sword making has a long history, as long as that of Korea. Question No.2: Where did you get such information as "sword making techniques from Silla times are identical to the way the Japanese make swords today"? Even if Japan learned sword making from China and Korea in the beggining, it does not mean the Japanese sword making never advanced from that time. According to the website of The Society for Preservation of Japanese art sword[2], Japanese swords have changed in accordance with demands of the era and swords of each era have distinctive characteristics. Silla met its end in the early 10th century and it is clearly impossible that Japan kept the same way of sword making since then.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way the Chinese and Koreans make swords, the technique has not changed much, so I wanted to know other than the rituals and repeating of the processes to make the sword more strong, what did Japan Change, in their technique.

I will update the Silla part to the three Kingdoms of Korea. Or you can try to rewrite it in a way that shows Korea had swords prior to Japan, then Japan had a long history and the confiscation and destroyed part were notes from the early 1900s by that dentist who was working with the Japanese. The few swords that were left in the museums were destroyed in the tokyo earthquake, that is how the pictures in the bottom of the page was obtained, (It was taken by the dentist) I will put in more info from the dentist (It is from the book Japans hidden history). by Dr Covell. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are violating the very clear 1RR rule listed on Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute page. Please stop doing so and discuss the issue on the talk page as you are supposed to do. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice to meet you^^! i see your contribution, you may well know Korea. execuse me, could you write Korean?--Saehayae (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that you're mixing up the theories in the war time and pro-independence period. The article said that in the colonial time, japanese advocated the theory that korean are in inferior position - and in resistance, the koreans developed another theory. it seems that you're the only one who feel confused over this.

Also according to the link[3] provided by you, the origin of Japanese royal family is subject to speculations and rumors but you seem to suggest an assertive fact in the article.

The speculations on the origin of Japanese royal family are more like an issue rather than the cause of korean blood theory, so it'd be more organized to put these theories in a separate section. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the tone and quotation is put correctly, I think it's okay to add that part of content. And actually, this article is carefully monitored. It won't really be difficult to tell if crank history or rumor is put as a fact. --Winstonlighter (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 07:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD pages are for discussing the AfD only, not for content details. That belongs on the WP:TALK page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectiveye, there is some more discussion on the talk page now. Please come and see. Thanks! --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in South Korea. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please take a look at this. The piped link is not accepted. As for Koizumi, he visited Yasukuni every year from 2001 to 2005, but not on August 15. Your addition was unsourced and misleading. Oda Mari (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2012 (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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Movable type#Korean compared to Gutenberg