User talk:Kim Han Gul

About your edit in the topic of Republic of China

Ambitious?- I know this is incredible and absurd...but it is truly the Constitutional territory which claimed by the Constitution of the ROC and have not been formally renounced by the ROC government~ For the reason please see Administrative divisions of the Republic of China#Claims over mainland China and Mongolia.--ILVTW (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Other counties have constitutions too. ROC isn't a country by the way. It's a mere island. Kim Han Gul (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Implying that a) the ROC isn't a country to 23 sovereign states, including the Holy See; b) the ROC only controls one island; c) counties have constitutions; d) assuming that you meant "countries", that because other countries have constitutions, the ROC's constitution is null and void. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How many countries recognise Taiwan as a country LOL ? Monkh Naran (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim Hangul, you need to reform yourself before continuing to edit Wikipedia. Fringe beliefs such as "ROC isn't a country...it's a mere island" are just wrong (ROC is the country; Taiwan is really the island) and have no place here on Wikipedia. You complete overlook the existence of Kinmen, Matsu, Dongsha, etc. You seem to be here only for your fringe POV views, as evidenced by your sporadic edit history. What's next? Claiming a unified Korea has the right annex areas such as Jilin?

I (and many others) WILL NOT tolerate false edit summaries such as "RV vandalism" in this revert. I shall make sure that I stall (by convincing admins) any of your future requests for rollback. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

*sniff sniff*

You were sure quick, weren't you? I seem to smell a sock, do you smell it too? Oh well. I'll pretend I didn't see anything. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're edits and comments

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Inner Mongolia. Thank you. --LLTimes (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is you assume good faith. Human rights group link must be there. Stop your CPC propaganda. Kim Han Gul (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't care if BOTH links are there, or if both are removed. But if only one is to be chosen, a website giving information about more aspects of Inner Mongolia other than human rights would be preferred. Having the human rights link by itself gives undue weight. And if you continue re-inserting that link at the expense of the other, I will continue reverting you.

And I warn you not to make baseless personal attacks again. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monkh Naran for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gantuya eng for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)