User talk:Wingwrong

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Comfort women are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. See these edits on 3 Sept and 9 Sept: [1], [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort women

Use the term "whore" again and I will ask for you to be blocked. "Whore" is offensive and absolutely unnecessary. Use the term prostitute or comfort women. Second, stop soap-boxing and trying to push your extremely fringe point of view or, again, I will ask that you be blocked. As I've told you before, you don't get to decide that one type of evidence is not good simply because you don't like it. That article is barely teetering on the edge of neutrality as it is...but the idea that there was no forced prostitution in Korea falls under Wikipedia's rules on fringe topics. It is a position that is not taken seriously by historians even in Japan, except for the most right wing nationalist black-van groups. Please confine yourself to suggestions for improving the article based upon what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources, or find a different website where you can discuss express your personal opinions on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Japanese. Sorry , I don't know that "whore" is slang. I used "Google Translation". I care to never use it.Wingwrong (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a little strong--I should have realized you aren't a native English speaker. Thanks for understanding for the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted your new edits there. Including any sort of interpretation of documents falls under what Wikipediia calls original research, which isn't allowed. Similarly, you can't take 2 different sources and put them together to imply something that neither of them says individually. Perhaps those sources might be useful, but not the way you pulled info from them. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That blog is Sankei-Shinbun Official blog, and that article wrote by Rubi Abiru of Sankei-Shinbun's reporter.And there are just a few newspapers that wrote "force" in the world. Prior to that, Mr.Abe speak English? Who are translation to English ? Mr.Abe never said "force" and "sex slave". He always say only "comfort women". Don't be forge!Wingwrong (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Comfort women, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

User page

Your user page is starting to cross the line towards WP:POLEMIC. We allow users a lot of freedom on their user page, but calling South Koreans enemies and trying to justify racism are a bit too much. Could you please consider removing some of the more extreme statements? Also, given your very very strong feelings, its probably best if you don't try to contribute to articles on Japanese politics, foreign relations, etc. (including Comfort women), because it sure seems like you can't do so neutrally. The last part is just a suggestion, not a requirement, but it's good to know when a certain topic is too personal to allow you to edit properly per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

icWingwrong (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the article parole on Liancourt Rocks. Please see the special rules about reverting at the top of the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Talk:Comfort women

Your edits on the "Comfort women" page are disruptive. Please stop. The talk page is not for your political arguments. Also, your English is too poor make meaningful contributions towards improving that page. If you can't speak English properly, you should not try to work on difficult topics like these.

If you continue with these kinds of edits, I will have to block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive agenda editing promoting historical denialism on Comfort women. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wingwrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reprinted only "Japanese Wikipedia's Image" and translate the "Japanese Wikipedia's contents". At least, It is not a violation of Japannese Wikipedia. Wikipedia is working under a common rule the world. Therefore, this is not denialism. You just do not allow the opinions of the Japanese people. Please view this site. This page is "Comfort women" in Japanese Wikipedia. [[3]] This contents of "2.2.2 韓国軍・アメリカ軍慰安婦" mean "Korean army & U.S.Army comfort women". I just tried to reprint it. Does not deserve to be called a "historical denialism" Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been warned several times that your actions are inappropriate. The content of Japanese Wikipedia is irrelevant, it's not a reliable source and does not have to follow the same content policies. You're on English project now, and must follow local policies. Since you didn't, you were blocked to prevent further violations. Max Semenik (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the JP Wiki is not a reliable source. So, I tried to present a [source], using the talk page. I don't write the main page. I write the "TALK PAGE". Is that site there to discuss with everyone? But, administrators not given me the time, and blocked me. That site is the largest newspaper in Korea. Do you still can not satisfy this?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wingwrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was read the "Blocking policy". But I have not been to any violation. "Disruption - Harassment"? If the anyone anger at having been put out the evidence, is it become harassment? if it's the case, this article Many Japanese become uncomfortable. Should be deleted. "gross incivility"? Are you become rude when you reprint a Korean newspaper? I do not know the meaning. I was already read the Blocking policy when I blocked a few days ago. Therefore, I'm going to have followed that rule. There is a Korean newspaper published article, and I was only reprinted it in the appropriate field. Or, is there a law that should not be admitted to exist for the U.S. military comfort women in the United States? I'm sorry if that was the case. I never write. However, if this is not the case, I want to teach me "how or where" do I write.　If different rules in the United States and Japan, it's pretty rare case. I can not seem to find it. I want you to let me know. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per comment below and complete elision of same in your response. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wingwrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

By 1966, official military brothels had been established within each division’s camp. Each one was a two-building “recreation area” where 60 Vietnamese women lived and worked. The prostitutes decorated their cubicles with nude photographs from Playboy magazine and had silicone injected into their breasts to make the American soldiers feel more at home.(From Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, Ballantine Books, 1975,1993)?UNIQ6cd57cf11361092a-nowiki-00000008-QINU?1?UNIQ6cd57cf11361092a-nowiki-00000009-QINU?

This is not original research. Not a fringe. It has been described in an academic book published by the American people in the United States. I do not know why I have been blocked for this thing. I apologize about the possibility that lacked courtesy. At least, please shorten the period.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 06:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you still continue to state that you don't understand why you were blocked, unblock is not possible. Please read WP:GAB and follow its advice before requesting unblock again - further unblock requests that don't address the reasons for your block, express an understanding of why you were blocked, and explain how you will avoid repeating the behavior that resulted in your being blocked, may well result in your talk page access being revoked for the duration of your block. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The simple reason is this: blocks may be used to prevent disruption on Wikipedia. The fact that you have been told over and over again not to attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for espousing your own views, in some sort of attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is why you were blocked. As I've said before, it's pretty clear to me that your obsession with trying to insert the fringe Japanese nationalist position into articles about Japan, despite there not being support in mainstream sources, is a problem and, ultimately, is disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answer. There is a newspaper article, there is also a Japanese official documents. Yet, No way, it was unexpected that had been considered "fringe". I do not want to think that Americans are all that's the case. But, I was disappointed. It's like a joke. It is blocked by that reason, it is impossible to present a legitimate article on Wikipedia.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is this: the best chance you have to remain unblocked after this one expires is to stop editing topics related to the Japanese politics, history, conflicts, etc. Try something else. If you want to continue to focus on Japan, try Japanese cities, pop culture, sports...something other than this topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there is a much bigger problem in English Wikipedia. I cannot afford to worry about such a thing. Now we consider the means to raise the problem with the politicians or large organization.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 02:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you that if you keep trying to edit these same topics, and don't make a complete change in attitude, you will be blocked again. My guess is that the next time, you'll be blocked indefinitely. So, it's really up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for care. But I was really disappointed to Wikipedia. So, I do not write anymore for a while longer. I wanted to write more many things. But this is no longer equal to the agitation. They said to "WP:GAB" to me any number of times. But whether appropriate where the item, they did not teach me. But I do not think that I write and are also applicable to any of them. Then, I heard them any number of times. But they don't teach me finally. So future, I will be blocked for the same reason. So I never write when I know the reason.

Americans should learn from the Japanese Wikipedia. Also a disgrace for the Japanese, Japanese doesn't conceale. Your word was the most easy to understand. Thank you, and Goodbye. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ウィキペディア日本語版は、日本中心になりがちです。それに、郷に入っては郷に従えっていう言葉もありますし、英語版ではローカルルールに従うべきです。Japanese Wikipedia usually has bias in favour of Japan. And You need to obey local rules in English Wikipedia. --水樹美月 (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

コメントありがとうございます。でも、私がブロックされた理由は「日本中心的だから」ではないですよね。アメリカ軍慰安婦のことを書いた韓国の新聞社の記事をトークページに張って、「この話題はここでいいのか？」と聞いただけでブロックされたわけですから。「アメリカ人にとって不名誉な記事は真実であっても隠蔽する」というのがローカルルールだというのなら、従いましょう。Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wingwrong. You have new messages at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute.
Message added 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent tendentious editing, especially for persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wingwrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just wrote based on the official position of the Japanese government. And I just pointed out that "there is no physical evidence". Why I called a denialist? Is it appropriate as a policy of Wikipedia that Fut.Perf emphasis on the testimony than photos? Is it appropriate as a policy of Wikipedia that Fut.Perf ignoring the official stance of the Government of Japan? Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia does not necessarily accept the officially stated view of the Japanese government on this issue. Therefore you have given no valid reason to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Wingwrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've never denied the existence of comfort women. I was just denying "forced by the military." Why do you call me denialism? It is "rejection of the discussion". First of all, after denying all discussion, whether it is appropriate on the grounds of denialism? I was blocked only from Fut.Perf. at three times. Even the official announcement of the Government of Japan, he called "denialism". I can not think that he remained neutral. He is biased to a specific policy. I request to dismiss him. I don’t care even remain blocked. However, I say "Put out the Physical Evidence" for the honor of the all Japanese.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've never denied the existence of comfort women. I was just denying "forced by the military." Why do you call me denialism? It is "rejection of the discussion". First of all, after denying all discussion, whether it is appropriate on the grounds of denialism?  I was blocked only from [[User:Fut.Perf.|Fut.Perf.]] at three times. Even the official announcement of the Government of Japan, he called "denialism". I can not think that he remained neutral. He is biased to a specific policy. I request to dismiss him. I don’t care even remain blocked. However, I say "Put out the Physical Evidence" for the honor of the all Japanese.[[User:Wingwrong|Wingwrong]]<span style="color:orange">★</span>[[User talk:Wingwrong#top|ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ]] 04:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've never denied the existence of comfort women. I was just denying "forced by the military." Why do you call me denialism? It is "rejection of the discussion". First of all, after denying all discussion, whether it is appropriate on the grounds of denialism?  I was blocked only from [[User:Fut.Perf.|Fut.Perf.]] at three times. Even the official announcement of the Government of Japan, he called "denialism". I can not think that he remained neutral. He is biased to a specific policy. I request to dismiss him. I don’t care even remain blocked. However, I say "Put out the Physical Evidence" for the honor of the all Japanese.[[User:Wingwrong|Wingwrong]]<span style="color:orange">★</span>[[User talk:Wingwrong#top|ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ]] 04:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've never denied the existence of comfort women. I was just denying "forced by the military." Why do you call me denialism? It is "rejection of the discussion". First of all, after denying all discussion, whether it is appropriate on the grounds of denialism?  I was blocked only from [[User:Fut.Perf.|Fut.Perf.]] at three times. Even the official announcement of the Government of Japan, he called "denialism". I can not think that he remained neutral. He is biased to a specific policy. I request to dismiss him. I don’t care even remain blocked. However, I say "Put out the Physical Evidence" for the honor of the all Japanese.[[User:Wingwrong|Wingwrong]]<span style="color:orange">★</span>[[User talk:Wingwrong#top|ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ]] 04:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're blocked, you can't respond there directly, but if you want to add something to the discussion you can put it here and someone will copy it over for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese government has consistently denied that "comfort women were forced by the military." In fact, Korean never present Physical Evidence. That is all. I'm not a denialist. I'm "evidence-supremacist". Would be required by the Wikipedia exactly?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort women's question

If you say comfort women thought it was a slave, please answer the following questions. At the very least, please think.

1. Why there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ? At first, please submit the "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" instead of "hearsay　/　testimony　/　novels".: The Japanese government's LATEST official response is "There was no evidence of forced by the military in the government data."(軍の強制連行の証拠ない　河野談話で政府答弁書, March 2007)
2. Why is not there orphans Mixed Japanese and Korean?: Immediately after the United States occupied Japan, rape occur frequently in Japan, half-breed called "GI baby" was born more than 7,000. During the Vietnam War, the Korean military rape occurs frequently, half-breed called "Raitaihan" in Vietnam was born tens of thousands of people.; As a result, the Japanese government was forced to establish a comfort station for the U.S. military.; However, the problem does not exist half-breed between Japan and Korea. On the contrary, for the military comfort women was idol. Take over the debt of comfort women, many Japanese soldiers were married her.

If you do not put out the answer to these, but it's just racism. Please do not complicit in racial discrimination by Koreans. I do not think I want to fight with Wikipedia. I only cannot forgive Fut.Perf of denialist. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 18:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you may not use your talk page to continue the dispute. If you try to do so, someone will probably remove your talk page access. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute! Where is "dispute"? There is only "oppression". I tell you just in case, I've never denied the existence of comfort women. I was just denying "forced by the military." Do you still call me denialism? It is "rejection of the discussion". It's too ridiculous. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you Qwyrxian, Phoenix7777 and more. I don't come here anymore. I'm sorry in poor English. But many Japanese is more poor. Therefore, I was forced to so. Someday, I hope to spread the Korean despicable forgery the world.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 05:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]