User talk:Japanese historian

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Japanese historian, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JH --

I've already said this to you in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki talk page, but I thought I'd try it again here: The main problem with your edit is not that it makes an "anti American" statement. The problem with it is that it makes NO point. You seem to think that just laying out the chronology of the Japanese War Cabinet meetings proves something, but as you've seen, no one agrees with you. I've counted at least 7 editors who have either deleted your edit or disagreed with it in the Talk page. If all these people were really worried about "anti American" statements, there are many, many other parts of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki article that they would object to. Your edit no more makes an anti American statement that it would if it pointed out that the land area of Japan is larger than the land area of Rhode Island. And it's not much more relevant to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki article than that land-area comparison would be. KarlBunker 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You're easily spotted, Tojo. Try again sometime later, but not without reading and adhering to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that I don't want to be spotted ????

The improved version is ENTIRELY within the Guidelines. Unfortunately, others on the PD page don't adhere to them. They massively delete without discussion, rationale or explanation. If I initiate a discussion they come up with no opposing evidence yet then delete any alteration I make. And this is by novices that don't even have 5% of my knowledge of Parkinson's Disease. For some reason they want to impose their ignorance on everybody. Vandalism means altering anything they don't like. If they do the same they call it improvements. For example, various fully referenced toxic acuses were deleted by Profsnow without discussion - only a "delete irrelevant toxins". After discussions he was completely unable to justify his actions yet when those toxins were replaced it was described as vandalism. There are obvious double standards on Wikipedia which you go along with.

The problem for these Trolls is that it must be obvious that I am unbannable. Banned several times a day I'm back within seconds, and I retaliate against those responsible. I know all the technical means and tactics for overcoming anything. So I now no longer have to comply with any rules. I can do as I please on Wikipedia and will do for as long as there are obvious double standards. There will eventually be no trace at all of EVERYTHING without exception that these novices add. Regardless of what they do, all their efforts will be completely wasted. The Parkinson's Disease page will remain hostile territory interminably until everybody adheres to the Guidelines that they so obviously flout whenever it doesn't suit them.

General Tojo - Wikipedia Outlaw