You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. —LactoseTI^T 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were correct about the IHO, it doesn't dictate our naming convention here. Please read over WP:NC. In any case, as mentioned before, you cannot simply re-introduce your controversial change ad infinitum within a specific day. Just a heads up that your violation of the 3RR has been reported here. —LactoseTI^T 06:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan

Wikipedia does not list disputed names in every mention of the subject in the article. I have reverted your edit and will add a section to the top explaining the naming dispute. B1atv 07:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IHO did NOT decide to exclusively 'sea of japan' naming use

the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". <<? No.

actually, iho chief said,

"I encourage the three countries concerned to find a solution acceptable to all of them, taking into account any relevant solutions, or else to agree to differ and to report the outcome of these discussions to the next conference."

The IHO declined the name use both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan". They did not decide to only sea of japan name use.

1. IHO cheif said, "these discussions to the next conference."

2. Previous IHO's map delete that only "sea of japan" name use.

3. The latest meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization ended without any changes, but South Korea is happy because the head of the organization suggested the moniker “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached.[1]

4. so, IHO did not decide to exclusively "sea of japan" name use.

According to IHO's technical resolution,

It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche. [2] [3]

so, exclusively 'sea of japan name use' did not permited. "Sea of japan/ East sea"(same use) is right. Panelequal3 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) =

Check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). According to Wikipedia naming convention,

Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:

For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
For all Japan articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
For all Japan/North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)
For all Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
For all North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)

Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.

so, use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is right.

Panelequal3 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Breach Sea of Japan

You are in breach of the Three revert rule and are being reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR B1atv 08:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive edits. You will soon be blocked from editing. How long that block remains is down to your behaviour. Continuing to vandalise Wikipedia is not appreciated.

You are citing naming conventions. Naming conventions are to do with the title of the article. Not the article text.

In Wikipedia, regardless of anything any international body decides, the convention for article text is for any required clarification in the name to be dealt with at the start of the article and for the remainder of the article to use the standard English name.

That is why multiple editors have reverted your edits.

Calling multiple editors who apply Wikipedia convention to articles "sockpuppets" is uncivil, abusive and demonstrates a lack of good faith. If you believe that multiple editors are sock puppets you can report them as such using Wikipedia procedures and the administrators will decide. B1atv 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing naming conventions. Naming conventions are to do with the title of the article. Not the article text.

>>>?? what? are you kidding me? please, check WP:NC.

also, if your logic is right, then must change sea of japan title, too. right? Panelequal3 08:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO. I am not kidding you, and neither are all the other editors who have tried to tell you the same thing! B1atv 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse people of bias, you accuse people of sockpuppetry, you claim 3RR violaitions where there is none, you completely ignore other editors comments, etc. Have you ever considered that you may have to change here? I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours due to a 9RR violaition. You were warned, and yet you made 9 reverts in a 24 hour period. Please use the time to read WP:3RR and reconsider your action. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]