User talk:Eyagi

Welcome

Hi Eyagi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Eyagi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to rewrite head sentence, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Request

Eyagi, this recent comment by you appears to have been placed in a section to which it has little connection. That section where the comment was placed appears to have no connection to the preceding section, and that preceding section seems to be what concerns you there. To avoid confusing both or either of the discussions in those sections, I request that you consider removing that comment before it is fixed in place by responses (see WP:REDACT). I'm making this request here instead of on that article talk page because the procedure outlined in WP:MUTUAL seems overly complicated to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I was mistaken. I deleted it immediately. Eyagi (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware of this Notice. This Talk on the comfort women issue is a discussion of facts or not, and has nothing to do with gender issues. Eyagi (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I will pursue arbitration enforcement if your tendentious conduct continues in this topic. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please request. My argument is quite simple. There are two opinions on comfort women: sex slaves or licensed prostitutes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am requesting that editors not exclude the claims of licensed prostitutes, as it is against WP:NPOV. A long Talk is a discussion about factual recognition with the editor. No one, except Binksternet, has disputed my claims. Why don't you argue on the talk page? Eyagi (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason that "No one, except Binksternet, has disputed [your] claims" in the last thread is that you are engaging in exactly the same WP:OR that has already been commented on by multiple people, in multiple places, and nobody except Binksternet is willing to engage any further with your repetitious behaviour. You have no support anywhere, from anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion has again closed the Talk page, although I have no intention of discussing you here. I would like to refute you because I don't want to be misunderstood as having agreed if I keep silent. Please specify the basis, persons and places for claiming WP:OR.

I have specifically pointed out the issue of comfort women and insist that the lead sentence be rewritten. Replies by labeling are proof that you cannot be refuted. The reason why you cannot be refuted is that there is no evidence to claim sexual slavery other than the testimony of former comfort women. Please refute this in concrete terms, not in the abstract. Eyagi (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on original research applies to you, regardless of whether you understand the policy or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you specifically refute above?　You, Binksternet and Acroterion are far too uninformed. There are numerous documents that deny the sex slave claim. I am presenting these in summary form. To avoid going in circles, please answer the following:

1. Regarding the claim of 200,000 Korean former comfort women, do you accept the fact that there were 240 South Korean former comfort women, or not? Grounds for disapproval.

2. The Kono Statement states that the ethnic majority was Japanese. Do you accept this fact or not? If no, the grounds.

3. The basis for the sex slave theory is UN report. Do you accept this fact or not? If no, the grounds therefor.

Reference materials(in no particular order)

Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection by J. Mark Ramseyer, Tetsuo Arima :: SSRN

Behind The Comfort Women Controversy: How Lies Became Truth HISTORY

[Bookmark] Controversy Over Harvard Article Can’t Erase the Facts of Comfort Women Contracts

Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War: A Response to My Critics

Waseda Professor Offers Evidence of Comfort Women Working Under Contract. Now Come the Attacks | JAPAN Forward (japan-forward.com)

Recovering the Truth about the Comfort Women

[Book]“Ianfu” ha mina gouikeiyaku siteita (“Comfort Women” All Signed a Contract of Agreement) by T. Arima (2021)

“Sex-Slave” Report: The UN’s Global Hoax (Jiyu-sha) No.1: Foreword, Table of Contents, List of Contributors By Fujioka Nobukatsu,

Comfort Women and Sex in the Battle Zone (English Edition) by Ikuhiko Hata Eyagi (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

email

Please discuss content issues on the relevant article talk page. I'm not interested in getting into private discussions regarding matters that other people may wish to comment on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you too. Eyagi (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Eyagi. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Moved to ANI Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I see from you both's talk pages that you have no knowledge of "comfort women" at all. Now I understand why your comments are always lacking in specifics. Please read the materials cited in the Talk first before participating in the discussion.

Again and again, "comfort women" are two claims of sex slaves and licensed prostitutes, which Binksternet acknowledges. Talk is a discussion on why the English version excludes claims of licensed prostitutes. Please explain why you both are in favor of exclusion. Binksternet explained that the reason is that sex slaves are the majority. Eyagi (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You are doing yourself no favours by making such comments here. I suggest you read the relevant policies (i.e. WP:OR and WP:RS for a start), and then respond in the WP:ANI thread: [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire (December 20)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by K.e.coffman was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Original research and POV content fork of Comfort women.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is simply a Japanese to English translation of legal and police records and does not apply to WP:OR. Have you checked the article? Eyagi (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this material is a compilation of legal translations. Please read and compare with the original text of the law quoted.

Licensed brothel and prostitute regulation order in Korea under Japanese Empire Eyagi (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Conduct disputes at talk pages

Hi Eyagi. I removed your recent post at Talk:Comfort women because it was off-topic for that page. If you have an issue with another user's conduct, you should follow the steps at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which starts with discussion at a user talk page.

I do see multiple issues that make a collapse reasonable. You appear to want to establish the rules that discussion will follow, but you have no authority to do so. You suggested that a no consensus outcome should result in your material inserted into the article, which is contrary to WP:NOCON. And your viewpoint on the use of primary sources is at odds with the no original research policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I understand the first half of your point. However, I disagree with the latter comment. Regarding "no original research", please tell me which part of my viewpoint is odd. I have asked AndyTheGrump et al. to indicate which parts fall under the original research, but have not received any response. All my claims are verifiable.

My issue with this article is very simple. As the request to retract the J. Mark.Ramseyer article indicates, there are two arguments for comfort women: licensed prostitutes and sex slaves. The question is why Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, does not list both arguments together. The editors admit that there are both arguments and claim that they exclude the licensed prostitute claim because sex slaves are the majority. The facts are 240 (according to the south Korean government: basis unknown) vs. about 200,000 (UN report). Eyagi (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You said "Use neutral expressions and in principle, state facts based on primary source (primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved)." Our policy says at WP:PRIMARY #5: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Do you have any specific concerns about this matter? I added the word "in principle". I expected this kind of discussion in the talk I posted. The Talk page is the only consensus space for editorial improvement. AndyTheGrump has repeatedly closed this Talk page without discussion. This is clearly a mouthpiece. Please tell me how to reopen the talk page without conflict.

As explained earlier, I posted my opinion on talk because I believe the current article violates Wikipedia's policy (neutrality). Only 5 people gave their opinion on these talks. All but Wtmichel have sabotaged my efforts to share facts and reach consensus. If you have a solution for reaching consensus, please let me know.

Binksternet: editor: sex slave claimer: removed licensed prostitute claim from article: my claim is WT:OR

Wtmichel: neutral position

Acroterion, AndyTheGrump and Aoich: closing or deleting my posts on Talk and Wikipedia without discussion Eyagi (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "This is clearly a mouthpiece", but my best guess is that it's a bad-faith assumption about someone else's motives. "Please tell me how to reopen the talk page without conflict": your best move is to just not do so. Maybe you can work on other areas of the encyclopedia, and see if anyone comes along to further your position, at which point it would be reasonable to chime in with the strongest available secondary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for using odd English. I meant to say the act of repeatedly closing a Talk page without giving the discussion a chance. As you pointed out, I don't think the discussion will progress even if I post again it under the current situation. As shown in Talk, there are many documents regarding comfort women as licensed prostitutes, and Ramseyer's paper is one of them. This material is an example of the criticism of the Coomaraswamy report.

“Sex-Slave” Report: The UN’s Global Hoax (Jiyu-sha) No.2: PREFACE The Fabrication and Spread of the “Comfort Women = Sex Slaves” Theory | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com)

The argument that the current article should be accompanied by an licensed prostitute claim has been discussed frequently on Talk, but each time Binksternet has been excluded. The comfort women issue is an event that occurred during the prewar Japanese imperial period, and all primary sources are in Japanese. In the J.Mark Ramseyer article Talk, Binksternet criticizes “Ramseyer cannot read or speak Korean, as he himself admits, so his notional assessments of Korean primary sources are rendered useless.” He has no basic knowledge about comfort women and refuses to accept those facts. I'm new to Wikipedia and still don't quite understand how Wikipedia works. Please tell me the following.

1. Do editors have the authority to eliminate claims that are contrary to their own opinion in the presence of two opposing opinions? Doesn't this sort of action violate the Wikipedia policy?
2. Who has the authority to mediate when there are disagreements like this time?　And how?
3. With what authority did you delete the Talk page?

Eyagi (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Eyagi, I think 1 is too vague to be answerable. 2: the steps for content dispute resolution are at WP:DR, though I urge you to weigh carefully whether pursuing further input—which comes at the cost of volunteer time—is worth potentially being blocked. 3: I have no authority above being a normal Wikipedia editor when it comes to talk page comment removal. I felt my removal was justified based on WP:TPO, part of the talk page guideline. Upon re-reading, it recommends collapsing such off-topic comments rather than removing them. I continue to feel that the talk page is better off without that section, but I would restore and collapse it if you insist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Please tell me which part of WP:TPO my talk falls under and what does "collapse" mean? I would like to restore.

On 1, we disagree with each other. On 2, I agree with you. For this reason, I posted my thoughts in accordance with Wikipedia's policy to reach consensus through Talk.

AndyTheGrump has rejected my post to Wikipedia on the grounds of OR using WP:ANI. If someone who understands Japanese reads it, it is obvious that it is not OR. Eyagi (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

On TPO: I mean the part about "Off-topic posts". Collapsed means I'd do this:

Off-topic
Collapsed content.

It's obvious to all of us that your proposed content is OR. So many editors have pointed this out to you. It should be obvious to you, when reading WP:PRIMARY, that your proposal is at odds with Wikipedia policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I cannot understand the content because it is abstract. Please be specific and explain.

Who are the editors? What part specifically does "your proposed content" refer to? Please be specific about the content of “proposal is at odds”. Eyagi (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel that responding to this would be a productive use of my time. Best of luck to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation for deleting my Talk is not specific and unconvincing. Please cancel the deletion. If not, I will post it again.

Binksternet explained that he removed the licensed prostitute claim because the number of licensed prostitutes is far less than sex slaves. He had no involvement in the closure or deletion of Talk or the Wikipedia article.

Aoich deleted my Wikipedia article, you deleted my Talk, Acroterion and AndyTheGrump closed my Talk. What they have in common is that you all have not provided any specific explanation as to the basis for your deletions or closures. This proves that you all cannot refute my claims. If not, you all should explain your refutations in the Talk page with specifics and evidence, rather than deleting or closing the Talk. Eyagi (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Restored as requested. Collapsed per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I learned the meaning of "Collapse" for the first time. The more you all repeat this, the more suspicious your readers will become. No one can remake histry. I recommend everyone to read the Statistical Annual Report of the Korean Governor-General's Office 1942. It shows multiples of various indicators at the time of 1910 and as of 1942. This is the fact of history. Eyagi (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Thank you for your action, these "modification attempts" mostly come from Japanese ultra-nationalist (extremist) movements. I see this kind of argument every day, unfortunately. Hanafunda (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I expressed my claims on Talk to improve the credibility of the COMFORT WOMEN article and suggested a rewrite of the lead sentence. I have never made an edit that goes against consensus. Currently, non-sex slave submissions to this article have been rejected by the editors. I've repeatedly posted the same claim, and I'm aware of the criticism of POV pushing, but this is because the two claims (licensed prostitutes and sex slaves) have moved in parallel. Below is the reason for my unblock request.

1 What is the comfort women issue?

The comfort women issue is the controversy over whether women and girls employed in brothels for the Imperial Japanese Military (of which Koreans were a part) were licensed prostitutes or sex slaves. Licensed prostitution was legal in Imperial Japan.[2] They were employed by kashizashiki operators during the period from 1932 to August 1945. From then until 1991, comfort women were recognized as highly paid professional prostitutes. In December 1991, three former Korean comfort women filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court, demanding an apology and compensation from the Japanese government. In 1996, UN Human Rights Commission Special Rapporteur R. Coomaraswamy reported that about 200,000 former Korean comfort women were forced into sexual slaves by the Japanese military. About 30 years after the comfort women issue arose, the South Korean government has recognized 240 women as sex slaves, but the grounds for their recognition have not been made public.

2 Proposals to write both claims and deviation from historical facts

Since the current article only describes the claims of sex slaves, I suggested that because it is an encyclopedia, the claim of licensed prostitutes should also be included.[3] The editor claimed to have excluded most of the comfort women because they were sex slaves. The current article deviates significantly from historical facts and undermines credibility.

3 Proposal to rewrite the lead sentence

The current lead sentence lacks logic and cites or misquotes numerous unreliable references.[4] To improve this, I recommend that when secondary sources are cited, the primary sources (books, articles, testimonies, national laws and police records, military regulations and records, government-issued documents, etc.) should be cited as the basis for the citation.[5] On the other hand, editors disagree that these secondary sources are reliable, that it is wikipedia's policy to cite secondary sources, and that articles with primary source citations are WP:OR. This view has led to the closure or deletion of the Talk page I posted. However, I believe that both of these recommendations are to improve the credibility of wikipedia articles.[6]

4 Mysterious behaviors

Deletion of "Draft: Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire" :The wikipedia article that was suspended for WP:OR reasons has been deleted.[7] :The content is the same as Licensed brothel and prostitute regulation order in Korea under Japanese Empire. why was it deleted ? :Redirect to comfort women article from Ianjo article :By all accounts, Ianjo (comfort stations) and comfort women are not the same. Why did they make the Ianjo article disappear? All of my contributions to this article have been delete for WP:OR reasons[8] The Talk that asked for clarification of editorial policy was also deleted for POV pushing reasons.[9] This is the primary sources of Ianjo.[10] In short, POV pushing is to muzzle refuters.

5 Verification based on revision history of talk contents

Talk is the discussions space to improve the articles. Open the Revison history of each article and compare AndyThe Grump's talk with Eyagi's talk.[11][12] The primary source of the sex slaves claim is the Coomaraswamy report, and the basis for the claim is the testimonies of former comfort women.The contents of these testimonies violate military regulations and prove that these women were not, in fact, comfort women of the Japanese military (see “Verification of the authenticity of lead sentence").[13] All of the secondary sources for the sex slaves claim are based on the assumption that these testimonies are correct.
The above is my explanation. Please unblock. Eyagi (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is an encylopedia based on reliable sources. The consensus at this ANI archive is that the focus of your activity is unhelpful due to its POV pushing nature. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2023 (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.

• Johnuniq is very polite. Essentially, your attempts to whitewash the atrocities committed by Japan in World War II are not wanted here. You need to face up to the facts of Japan's wartime past, as most honorable Japanese people did many years ago, and not try to force a false history upon us to hide its war crimes. In essence, if trying to deny the mass kidnapping, rape, torture and murder committed by the Imperial Japanese Army in WWII is all you want to do, you can fuck off go somewhere else to do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is a controversy about the historical facts on the former comfort women and has nothing to do with "whitewash". To avoid confusion, please provide the source of "the mass kidnapping, rape, torture and murder committed by the Imperial Japanese Army". The core of this controversy is whether the Coomaraswamy Report is reliable or not. If you claim it is reliable, please do not close or delete Talks, but refute it with evidence. Eyagi (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have it backwards. It is up to you to prove you are not trying to whitewash Imperial Japan's wartime record. PhilKnight (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2023 (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.

Anyone looking at these unblock requests should note that Eyagi has been substantially modifying the requests after they have been responded to - see here [14][15]. Quite what this bizarre behaviour is intended to achieve, I have no idea, but in my opinion this apparent inability to understand elementary principles of normative textual communication provides yet further evidence that Eyagi is incapable of usefully participating in any form of collaborative project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to add the following explanation to help the administrators better understand this dispute.

1 My motivation for posting on COMFORT WOMEN'S TALK

The reason I am interested in this article is that a call for signatures to retract the Ramseyer paper has gathered just under 4,000 signatures in a short time.[16] The comfort women issue is a complex political issue between Japan and Korea. Nonetheless, I was convinced through the internet search that signers read this lead sentence and signed it. J. Mark Ramseyer refutes in detail the claim to retract his paper.[17]

２ Historical facts about comfort women

Tetsuo Arima & J. Mark Ramseyer discuss in detail the genesis of the claim that comfort women are sex slaves and point out the connection between North Korea Government and Korean Council.[18] Comfort stations are kashizashiki (Japanese: licensed brothels) for Imperial Japanese military personnel and civilian employees. Comfort women are licensed prostitutes employed by the comfort station operators. The only basis for the sex slaves claim of comfort women is the testimony of former Korean comfort women. The credibility of these testimonies has been denied also by the military police records[19] and others. The Japanese government argued that the expression “sex slaves” contradicts the facts so that it should not be used, and the South Korean government agreed with the Japan-South Korea agreement in December 2015.[20] English is now an international language; the English version of Wikipedia's comfort women article, in particular, requires editorial neutrality.

３　AndyTheGrump’s actions

AndyTheGrump's actions are, together with Acroterion, clearly aimed at preventing the addition of the licensed prostitutes claim to the current comfort women article, which contains only the sex slaves claim, and also to prevent the writing of the Ianjo article. AndyTheGrump repeatedly closed my Talk[21] and warned "Any further abuse of this talk page will be reported ay WP:ANI"among the reasons for closing the "draft of the second half of the revised "lead sentence"".[22] As you can read, this is simply summary of articles from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.
The Comfort Station article is redirected to Comfort station and cannot be read, but you can find out what has been removed from Talk's Edit source.[23] The existing article is only 16 lines without verifiability and I am the largest contributor to this article, although my articles has been deleted. The disruptive editing is by AndyTheGrump and others. Eyagi (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's clear to me that, for several reasons, this project isn't for you. I also see no further point in you having talk page access. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2023 (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.

Eyagi, when you say "the English version of Wikipedia's comfort women article, in particular, requires editorial neutrality", you misunderstand the meaning of WP:NPOV. It doesn't mean Wikipedia should give equal balance to the established academic consensus and to ultra-nationalist war crime deniers. No, it means Wikipedia should reflect the balance of academic sources - and if those sources strongly support one view of things then Wikipedia should reflect that same view. You will not succeed in whitewashing that article, no matter how long you argue - the consensus is very clearly against you. And if you don't give up pursuing the exact same line of argument with each unblock request (and attacking those who are trying to maintain NPOV and uphold the current consensus), I suspect you will soon lose the ability to edit this page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #70788

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)