D.H.Lee
Welcome! edit
|
September 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
D.H.Lee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead --D.H.Lee (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's not enough just to say I understand what I am blocked for
. You have to show us that you understand, you have to explain your understanding of the reason for block. Also, it is not enough to just say I will not do it again
. You have to tell us what exactly are you going to do if unblocked. How exactly would your editing be different if unblocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
D.H.Lee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the block is no longer necessary because I understand I was blocked for tendentious editing, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead by editing without tendency
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but given the nature of the problem this request does not convince me that the issue wouldn't recur if you were unblocked. Huon (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
--D.H.Lee (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Huon: Could you kindly explain to me what you mean by "the nature of the problem"? Thank you. --D.H.Lee (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are a historian specializing in 20th century Korean history. You should be well aware of the scholarly consensus regarding comfort women, or if you aren't, you should be easily able to educate yourself before writing about that topic on Wikipedia. Yet you managed to write claims such as that "Japanese operators followed the order and only recruited willing women", which is at best a fringe view. This is a deliberate deviation from what the primary sources report, namely that the operators of the brothel were Japanese. More bluntly, you added untrue content that better fitted the story you wanted to tell than the truth. In other places you claim to uphold what the primary sources report; as an academic you should know that picking and choosing the sources that support your side of the story and ignoring of misrepresenting the sources that disagree with it is not appropriate. Yet still you did so. If you were willing to violate academic standards to such a degree, I'm reluctant to accept a mere "I will not do it again". Huon (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness. I don't blame you for thinking that I deliberately misrepresented the issue if you think the Japanese operated brothels. There are a number of primary & secondary sources that prove that comfort stations where Japanese women worked were operated by the Japanese operators and comfort stations where Korean women worked were operated by the Korean operators. This is because of the language issue of course. The Korean women, mostly from rural villages, couldn't speak Japanese and thus the Japanese couldn't have possibly managed them. A diary written by a Korean comfort station worker was discovered in 2013 and it is a compelling primary source that definitely proves that comfort stations where Korean women worked were operated by the Korean operators. http://book.daum.net/detail/book.do?bookid=KOR9788994228761 Of course the diary was written in Korean, so unless you are Korean you can't read it. (By the way this is the main reason the comfort women issue is completely misunderstood by most because the mainstream narrative was established by scholars who couldn't read primary sources in Korean) So instead here is the analysis of the diary in English by Professor Choe Kil-sung. http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Chapter-51.pdf Please make sure you read the whole thing. It will tell you what the life of operating comfort stations was like. Here is the list of comfort stations and their owners that appear in the diary. At the time most Koreans used Japanese names so the names were Japanese but the owners were all Korean if you check where their origins were. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0189045814.jpg Here is the list of comfort stations in Shanghai where Korean women worked. Again the owners were all Korean. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=4398766540.jpg Here is an order the Japanese military sent to comfort station operators. http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=8155355946.jpg It says "Only recruit willing prostitutes. Do not recruit unwilling women." The reason some of the Korean women are still unhappy is because the Korean operators didn't follow the orders. The reason no Japanese women complain is because the Japanese operators followed the orders and recruited only willing prostitutes. I have so much more to provide, but I don't want to wear you out, so I pause here for now. Please let me know after you read the analysis of the diary. Oh, here is a news release of the discovery of the diary. http://archive.is/1jcC4 I want to be unblocked so that I can remove one sentence from the following page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Kidnapping_of_Korean_Women_in_1930s Under "Comfort women for the Japanese military" section, I want to remove the last sentence "So I provided this section to present a different view from comfort women Wikipedia." I put that in there by mistake. That sentence shouldn't be there because obviously it is subjective. --D.H.Lee (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: The U.S. State Department is very much aware that the comfort women issue is a North Korea issue. They are monitoring the scholars and websites that I mentioned. You can erase the messages I send you, but your edits are on records and I'll continue to monitor them. Should a tragic event takes place in East Asia, I will report your activities on Wikipedia to the State Department. I will let them know that I made you aware of North Korean involvement yet you continued to cooperate. You'd better hope Kim Jong-un will not behave badly. That is my hope as well. --D.H.Lee (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, D.H.Lee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of South Korean rape of Vietnamese women for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South Korean rape of Vietnamese women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean rape of Vietnamese women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 23:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)