User talk:Sbowman3452

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Prostitution in Malaysia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I'll be more careful from now on. But I started editing Wikipedia for the first time, and I would really appreciate it if you could tell me specifically what kind of behavior is the problem Sbowman3452 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Before you delete material that is footnoted, please discuss it on the talk page first. Otherwise you will get reverted or blocked. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Is this unconditional for all documents with footnotes? Sbowman3452 (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

For example, I would really appreciate it if you could answer whether it would be problematic for me to leave the government's statistics in the editorial summary and delete existing content from my personal blog. Sbowman3452 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --John B123 (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope you may not get confuse for my short eng.

It's difficult to understand what you've decided was wrong. But I appreciate it because you're willing to discuss it thanks for that.

You're trying to retain the contributions left by users who were blocked using multiple accounts. The user left such a description in all kinds of documents, and when I checked your past editing history, I was impressed that you also deleted it after seeing that it was left by the blocked user.

However, in my opinion this is not something that deserves to be deleted after discussion. I tried to correct the facts based on the governmental data, which offically published. Sbowman3452 (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry considering the possibility that I revised many documents at once and thought you were damaging them.

However, I revised the contents described for the purpose of disparaging certain Asian countries that the permanent car terminal contributed, which were deemed not worthy of remaining in the document.

And i also corrected the documents, that the SK government corrected due to the large discrepancy of facts.

In the comment, I faithfully linked the announcement that the government abolished all statistics on women's prostitution rates because they were far from the truth. Sbowman3452 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Sbowman3452 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Sbowman3452 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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=Your reason here [[User:Sbowman3452|Sbowman3452]] ([[User talk:Sbowman3452#top|talk]]) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (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=Your reason here [[User:Sbowman3452|Sbowman3452]] ([[User talk:Sbowman3452#top|talk]]) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (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=Your reason here [[User:Sbowman3452|Sbowman3452]] ([[User talk:Sbowman3452#top|talk]]) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I just got blocked because I was considered a sock. How can I prove my innocence? (My report pointed out that my English is "broken English" and this is using a translator, so please consider it.)

First of all, this is the article that regarded me as a sock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123

First: I am editing in Seoul, but Seoul is a city with a population of over 10 million, so there may be a lot of different people. It is embarrassing that I was blocked because of his editing same city. And I already told the manager Roy Smith that I was IP Address 106. I already identified myself as IP 106 in the process of reporting to Roy smith before 88thd reported me as the same person as 106.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RoySmith#Sir,_I'd_like_to_report_something

This is the report link, that I proved myself that I'm an ip 106, and I've just signed up for membership. This definitely gave other users as a cause to misunderstand. Sorry. This is true. At first, I edited it as Ip address 106, but I joined because I thought members could give more credibility than non-members.

Second : I swear I didn't make any racist statements about the Chinese. You may check it. The 88thd's report says that me and Marry making racist comments about the Chinese, but you can't take the time to check my editing. I did not make any racist statements.

Third : Both I and Sock, "Marryhence," cite data from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, but if you look at Marryhence's contributions, he's a racist who uses that data to accuse Chinese women of being prostitutes. The citations are completely different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=944340377

So that's what Marryhence quoted, he used this material to drive Chinese women as prostitutes.

But I didn't do that. I also cited the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family data, which is completely different. You can also use a translator to see the difference. First, his link doesn't work anymore. But if you search for the keyword, "외국인 여성 성매매 실태 (Study on the Status of Foreign Women's Prostitution and How to Improve the System" it leads to the "Korean National Library." I checked and what he quoted was just "research commissioned by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family." It is not published by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. And it is housed in a library.

https://www.nl.go.kr/NL/onlineFileIdDownload.do?fileId=FILE-00008146483

This is the data he cited. I'm familiar with Korean, so I can find it easily. The data I cited was distributed by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family for media reporters. This is a rebuttal to the Japanese blog content that sock olafu linked.

https://www.mogef.go.kr/nw/rpd/nw_rpd_s001d.do?mid=news406&bbtSn=642760

The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family is the most well-versed in this field in SK, so who on earth can you base this on? I think this is more credible than the Japanese blog cited by Olafu the sock. In addition, I used data issued by "Statistics Korea", a Korean government agency, to refute the rate of prostitution rate in Korea.

https://kostat.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10403040000&bid=107&act=view&list_no=244533

Fourth : What's really embarrassing is that user 88thd, who reported me as a sock, was considered as sock of me, and he blocked. 88thd is the one who reported me as a sock for Marry and bablo. I checked it. And knew that the administrator considered me to be 88thd's sock, not Marry and bablo's. 88thd is the one who reported me. I am not 88thd or Marry or bablo.

Fifth : It is sad that I considered it as a broken English because I used a translator. I feel bad for my English skills. This is probably a common phenomenon when using a translator. Expecially for the "Massage palor", I only deleted that because I thought it didn't need to be here. I didn't claim that this contributed was Olafu's work.

Sixth : When I Google the address that blasphemes Chinese women as prostitutes mentioned above, I found the same source on Wiki in Korea.

https://namu.wiki/w/%EC%A4%91%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%B8%20%EC%97%AC%EC%84%B1%EC%9D%98%20%ED%95%B4%EC%99%B8%20%EC%84%B1%EB%A7%A4%EB%A7%A4

This document is about driving Chinese women as prostitutes. Here, I found data with the same title, "(외국인 여성 성매매 실태)Foreign Women's Sex Trafficking Status." It seems that those socks at least quoted this site. It was used by "sock" Marry.

According to 88thd's report, he said that "here they both refer to edits as "documents" Than what do we call it unless we call it as a document? He's capable to find many articles calling Wikipedia edits as a document. This will be the influence left by that Korean wiki, and as a Korean speaker, Namu wiki calls edits a document, so I think it will be affected. This has spread wily on their web.

Seventh : The editorial field is completely different. He mostly focused on segregative contributions toward Chinese women. And since besto is the sock who leaves that kinds of content, it just seems that both I and Marry are reporting on the besto.

Eighth : Where the editing areas overlap. Regarding this, both me and marry overlapped while deleting the content of Olafgurfson which is sock. And even if you edited the same document, the content of each other is completely different.

This is me and marry, and the sock of marry, bablo, this is what was raised in the 88th report.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&diff=prev&oldid=1219679211

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&diff=prev&oldid=944333926

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=944305449

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=945026534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitution_in_Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=945026534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&diff=prev&oldid=961273411

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&diff=prev&oldid=905013760

This is me and marry and bablo's editing details. He is an extreme nationalist and racist. Other contentions can be found in 88thd's report. I'm sorry I just signed up for wiki and acted short, but I'm definitely not a sock. If I were marry's sock, it means I've been constantly obsessed with wikipedia for four years and patrolled edits. I just wondered why there was such a thing, so I looked up edit history, where I found out that besto's contributed were restored last month by Olafu. And I reported him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RoySmith#Sir,_I'd_like_to_report_something

I sincerelly want you to take a look. This is the link that I reported about the sock Olafu.

This is what I can prove. Please tell me if there are any additional things I need to prove. I will do my best. Sbowman3452 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)