| Revision as of 21:21, 12 June 2008 editCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 edits →Reply: reply again.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:08, 14 September 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| I performed some mainly copyedits on the contentious ] page which carries two major tags requiring work. I responded to other editors reasonable questions. | |||
| Very shortly after, I received a number of increasingly hysteric warning threats and revisions from a Pro-Korean editor ] . The article was then identically reverted by another editor. I continued to develop the article. | |||
| I recognised that I was being set up in an attempted ] or IP admin that would support his POV and post a note of this on his page ... preempting exactly what I suspected 1 minute later . | |||
| Then followed a complaint by the user to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. | |||
| '''What I am doing is plainly not vandalism. I have added quotations on both sides of the argument, whittle down the written English and am attempting to address the main tags at the top of the page. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits but not be subjected to intimidation in this manner'''. --] (]) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2008 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Comfort women|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' | |||
| == Reply == | |||
| Caspian blue has reverted you on ] exactly one time. That is not edit warring. Two other editors have also reverted your changes to that article (well, three now if you count me). You have undone the changes of each of those editors. That is considered edit warring ''regardless of the merits of your claim''. I see you have switched to discussing the matter on the ], that is good. I trust you will not revert the article again without establishing consensus. Thank you. --] (]) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> 3RR on ]. ] (]) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|'''Let us be honest and clear ... this is a knowingly contrived situation designed to maintain control of an article''' ... Indeed, one I predicted the account Caspian blue would attempt on his talk page and above at top. | |||
| --- '''*'''All three editor performed the identical and total deletion of all of the work I am doing on the article. | |||
| --- '''*''' All three removed entirely neutral copyedits. | |||
| --- '''*''' None engaged in any discussion | |||
| --- '''*''' None had previous sought to address the tags at the top of the article. | |||
| --- '''*''' I do not challenge any of the claims on the article nor have I ever suggested that Korean women were signing up in droves so, please, get real. | |||
| --- '''*''' I have attempted discuss with all parties and on the topic page. | |||
| --- '''*''' And it is entirely accurate to represent, as I have done, that there was an existing sex industry in Korea prior to, during, and after the Japanese invasion (indeed, it expanded considerable during the American invasion). If war is anything, it is crime by men against women regardless of race or nationality. I am not Asian, putting this topic into shape is going to require an impartial hand. | |||
| ---'''*''' The intention behind Caspian's assault is far too transparent (he even presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR!) and the protagonists have immediately reverted all edits. | |||
| ---'''*''' Lastly, if you look at the diffs, I was actually continuing to develop topic and being the one '''subject''' to identical revisions. --] (]) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Comment''': You can still edit your talk page, so I kindly suggest you to remove personal attacks against me such as ''Very shortly after, I received a number of <u>increasingly hysteria warning threats and revisions from a Pro-Korean editors</u> Caspian_blue . I recognised that <u>I was being set up in an attempted WP:3RR</u> or IP admin that would support his POV and post a note of this on his page ... preempting exactly what I suspected 1 minute later . | |||
| Who reported your own case to ] and ]? The former was done by you and the other was by Jay. You're the one having a problem with your own attitude, so left the improper comments against me on my talk page and here and there. If your claims are all right, why many editors restored from your massive blanked materials at {{la|Japanese war crimes}}, {{la|Comfort women}}? At this point, I only see your personal attacks here. That is not good for your unblock request. --] (]) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Caspian, from your User page, you are Korean or Korean American, right? You have an axe to grind against the Showa Empire, as many do for many reasons. You are working extremely hard to jockey the system against me. Fine. You will find many axes to grind for whatever reason. | |||
| :: I am not Japanese. I am not even Asian. The topic needs work. It is time to be mature about it and let it be tidied up. | |||
| :: I stand by my copyedits. I have never challenged the facts on the topic. --] (]) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you still misunderstand the situation. I watched you blanked cited contents from ] yesterday, and another editor restored it as I guessed. Because the article is very sensitive and has been built up by consensus by editors over countless disputes, your editing with no discussion would cause a problem. However, I'm not that interested in the articles as you think but rather very sensitive at any verbal attacks. Yesterday, I filed a report on somebody's racist attacks against Tibet, Taiwan, Korea and Japan (the last case was most severiest one.) If you did not write to me "rubbish", "set-up of 3RR violation", reverting my talk page more than 3 times, I would not spend my time talking with you, really. Besides, I would not think that you would be Japanese even though you obviously are living in Japan now per your ISP. But many foreigners are residing there and your way of speaking seems not like Japanese thinking. But you assume that my objection to you is just because I'm a Korean and assume you would be from ]. That is wrong. The topic might be cleaned up, but as I say, please "use talk page if you have an issue on contents to be removed or added". Regards --] (]) 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The topic is badly written, lacking in the topic's full complexity and unnecessarily prejudicial. What you don't seem to realise that being badly written and carrying tags at the top devalue even a critique of Showa militarism. Duplication and exaggeration do not impress. | |||
| :::Your immediate flagging up of my IP address, so as to alert others, the tone of your warnings, the persistent repetition and links to Japanese atrocities, the summaries ... this is what I am calling "hysteric" rather than reasonable. | |||
| :::'''I never challenged the facts of the topic. I am trying to make it readable. You have never discussed one single edit I made.''' --] (]) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Look, you were very aggressive at me giving you warning signs on your unilateral deletions. I kept writing in the templates that "use relevant article talk pages if you have a content issue" and you came to pour at me as adding improper comments over and over. You deleted my message completely on your page, but why would you revert my page over and over? IP address with 60.xx.xxx.xxx can be designated to Japan/Korea/Australia/CA, USA, so I need a clarification on the IP. Anyway, you label me as a pro-Korean editor, and my intentions are too transparent. However, I've not added any single contents regarding "the persistent repetition and links to Japanese atrocities". The topic is really not my interest.--] (]) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments regarding unblock request=== | |||
| While the user did eventually attempt to engage on the talk page, it wasn't until after at least the 3rd revert, and he or she reverted a fourth time shortly after without another response. | |||
| The removal of neutral copyedits ''in addition to controversial pov edits'' appears to be at least partially true, but it was difficult to avoid this due to the ongoing edit warring by the IP. | |||
| The allegation that " presents the attempt to continue a discussion on his talk page as a 3RR" is a gross misrepresentation. The IP posted a comment at ], which Caspian removed. The IP then restored it multiple times in contravention of ]. I am not sure Caspian handled that particular situation in the most graceful manner, but the IP was definitely edit-warring on another user's talk page. | |||
| I hope the IP can come back and become a productive editor -- a lot more ''discussion'' would be recommend, especially on article talk pages -- but there is no legitimate reason to lift the block at this time. In addition, if you are going to make such controversial edits, I suggest creating an account. --] (]) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Can I just underling out that I was NOT reverting the actual topic. I was continuing to develop the article mainly with copyedits and it was my work that was being identically reverted.''' | |||
| : I also continued to develop the conversation '''NOT''' merely replace items. | |||
| : I thought this was the right to do and I am sorry that I was unaware that continuing a referenced discussion on users talk page was a big crime. --] (]) 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:08, 14 September 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.