User talk:95.25.189.242

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Caspian blue 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Caspian blue 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not a vandal action. Do you claim that An was not a criminal? 95.25.189.242 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Vandalism and WP:GAME, Gaming the system 	Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by making bad faith edits go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets..


 * Your disruption has been opposed by editors, but you're deliberately disrupting the article, so vandalism is the correct assessment.--Caspian blue 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By editors? Do you mean by you? 95.25.189.242 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

According to your logic, Hirohito is an A-class criminal who was only pardoned by the US. An is an independent activist and assassinated Ito Hirobumi--Caspian blue 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably you are right about Hirohito (though I have some doubts about him - was he ever under official trial?). As for An, yes, he was an independent activist and assassinated Ito Hirobumi. But wasn't he a criminal? AFAIK, if you assassinate someone, you commit a crime. And An was officially found guilty and sentenced to death by the Japanese court in Ryojun. 95.25.189.242 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't live in the Japanese occupation era, and your analysis on An based on your anti-Korean sentiment is not the same as the modern scholarship. Even Japanese schools teach him as independent activists or nationalist, not a criminal as you try to push your titled view. You've participated in the discussion, but why are you WP:SOCKing and disrupting the article? --Caspian blue 16:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, I can also suspect that your analysis on An is based on your ultra-pro-Korean sentiment. ^-) It seems to me that our disagreement is not about An but about that does it mean then you call someone "a criminal". As for me, criminal is person who committed a crime according to the laws of the country there the crime was committed. For example, it is generally accepted that Nazis were bad guys. Among them there was Reinhard Heydrich, who was assassinated. I personally do hate Nazis. I would have killed Heydrich if I had a chance. But still, I think that the people who killed him were criminals (though they were fighting for the just cause). Do you get my point? 95.25.189.242 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how can your ultra-anti-Korean sentiment and ultra-pro-Japanese sentiment compare with mine since you have disrupted not only English Wikipedia, but also Korean Wiki, Commons and Russian Wiki? You failed to get a consensus for your highly biased view. According your weird logic, Che Guevara is a criminal. Please don't ever think that disrupting Wikipedia for your propaganda over the view which the modern scholarship does not agree with can be justified or allowed.--Caspian blue 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Korea. I respect such persons as Pak Chung-hee and Lee Sunshin, I simply don`t like Korean nationalism. Do modern scholars say An was not a criminal? Was An officially pardoned? And also, please cease calling my actions "disruptive". It is impolite, you know. 95.25.189.242 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't you answer my question? You're evading my question. I simply dislike Japanese nationalism, and don't want to see Wikipedia being constantly disrupted by people like you with any biased or wrong information. You can not go back to the Japanese occupation era unless you invent time machine, so please don't push your wishful thinking to Wikipedia. You know that your edits have been reverted for your endless POV pushing, so that is correct to say that your edits are disruptive. Fact is fact.--Caspian blue 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can readdress the same question to you: why do you disrupt Wikipedia? ^-) You should understand that from my point of view, my edits are closer to neutrality than yours. So shall we resume our discussion about the article or shall we keep blaming each other for POV-pushing? 95.25.189.242 (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you failed to answer my question because you obviously can not present any valid argument for my question that adopts the same logic as yours. Your POV to the talk page of An Jung-geum got a concensus or not? You failed to get so. As long as you do not refrain from your progadanda, your edits would be treated as such. That is a fact and your responsibility. Moreover your blatant WP:SOCKing and WP:Gameing the system as well as your disruption to Korean Wikipedia don't make your insistence credible.--Caspian blue 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus about my edits to the article because the only place there it has been discussed is here. However, you idea that An was not a criminal is not based on consensus as well. 95.25.189.242 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So answer me, 1) Che is a criminal or not, so 2) should use the "criminal box" as you insert to An Jung-geun for your continued same POV pushing? --Caspian blue 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, he is. 2) There is nothing wrong with it. However, if anyone thinks that is inappropriate, he or she should politely discuss this at the talk page instead of blaming the opponent for POV-pushing. 95.25.189.242 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Then, why don't you practice for your "belief" to the article? Isn't it contradictory that you're just doing nothing for your belief to the article? 2) "What" is nothing wrong with "it"? Are your edits against the consensus or not? You have not presented any evidence for your POV. 3) Since you know that there is no consensus for your disruptive edits, why are you insisting that it should have the infobox? As long as you're not editing Wikipedia constructively, and you have that history, you don't have a right to complain about your edits being called as disruptive.--Caspian blue 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue, I acted according to "WP:BB" rule. And you - could you please, at last, explain me, why it is incorrect to call An Jung-geun a criminal despite the fact that he was convicted for murder by the Japanese court in Ryojun? 95.24.189.172 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer to User:Elmor rus or sock IPs
95.24.189.172 or /, you again have failed to answer my questions. Instead of practicing your firm belief over "convicted people" such as Che Guevara that should be labeled as criminals with the criminal infobox, you only made few edits to Che Guevara at Russian Wikipedia yesterday after our discussion You did not label Che Guevara on either English Wiki, and Russian Wikipedia because you know that your POV does not comply with the norm and common sense while you feel you're okay with your own POV pushing against the existent consensus and modern scholarship? Showing such dual standard and inconsistent logic do not make your insistence WP:BOLD edits. That is just disruptive edits. Bold only applies one time, and then WP:BRD, not mean that you can keep reverting the article up to WP:3RR. So please don't misquote WP:BOLD for your long-term POV pushing. According to the page, "..but please be careful

Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly."

Moreover, your edit was reverted by another editor, wasn't it? Thus, you have no ground for your edits based on WP:CONSENSUS. Not to mention, you have violated WP:SOCK, WP:GAME, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Edit war, WP:POINT as well as making bogus allegations to harass me. My patience is not infinite, so please don't do that any more.--Caspian blue 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don`t edit the article about Che because I don`t want to. Please remember that it is not an army and you are not my commanding officer, so you can`t order me. Now you, please, answer my question in the section above. 95.24.189.172 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You only tweaked "unsourced" tags to the article of Che Guevara on the Russian Wikipedia, so I see your double standard. I only said why you're quite about the much notable figure for your infobox agenda that appeared to An Jung-geun, and you simply "can't" risk yourself with your same logic. You said people can discuss over the "criminal infobox" if you insert the infobox, so I "asked you" why you wouldn't you make the chance? I already answer to your nonsensical question on the page. Please don't exhaust my patience any more.--Caspian blue 14:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you're avoiding my question, switching the topic of our discussion from An to Che. Could you please answer my question: why it is incorrect to call An Jung-geun a criminal despite the fact that he was convicted for murder by the Japanese court in Ryojun? If you convince me that this as inappropriate, I promise, I'll never try to insert that infobox again. 95.24.189.172 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've told you, I already answered your question, so carefully re-read my comments here again. While you totally are ignoring the circumstance at that time and modern scholarship from both Japan and Korea in order to make a WP:Point and push your WP:POV. You said by your same logi that demonstrated to An Jung-geun, Che Guevara is a criminal and the article can have the infobox if a consensus is formed, but you have failed to practice for your belief to the article. You know that that practice to the highly watched article would highly likely get you blocked immediately unlike An Jung-geun. Not to mention, you have failed to form a WP:Consensus since I think your edits are disruptive and your edit was reverted by another editor. And your POV edits are always reverted by other common editors like your edits to Sun Myung Moon. As Che is not regarded as a criminal by scholarship, so as is An. On the other hand, you still have not answered my questions, because you can't. Who could convince you since your disruptive POV agenda has lasted to multiple Wikipedia projects for over one and half year. That's why you're indefinitely blocked somewhere. --Caspian blue 15:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, provide at least 3 sources from modern scholars (better from English-speaking countries) stating that An is not a criminal. If you do, I'll agree with you and this discussion will be closed. 95.24.189.172 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're indeed wasting my time for your persistent insistence. You already "saw" necessary English sources to the intro of An Jung-geun. Please don't play your double standard any more. Why do you think that I should spend my time talking WP:SOCKs like you? --Caspian blue 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do these sources say "An was not a criminal"? If they do, please provide 3 quotes here - and I'll admit that the "criminal" infobox is an inappropriate one. 95.24.189.172 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Check yourself since many of them are "available" online. We've already discussed so, I don't follow your nonsensical "commend". If you're so caring about the article, "reading" the article and checking the referenced sources are your job. Now, please answer my questions that you're totally ignoring. Until you do, I'll not waste my time for you any more. Any disruptive edits from you should be treated as such.--Caspian blue 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the question about Che - I edit articles I want to. So do you and so are all Wikipedians. As for An: if the situation is indeed as you describe it (it is generally accepted now that An was falsely convicted), that, of course, the vast majority of the sources related to this person should reflect this fact. But, as, I checked the sources in the article, none of them says that. If you are right, it would be really simple for you to provide appropriate sources. But if you fail - well, probably then you are wrong, not me? Also, if I missed any of questions, would you please restate them here and I'll answer them? And, the last but not the least, I demand that you treat me with the same respect I treat you. I will only participate in a civilized discussion, not in a wrangle. 95.24.189.172 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer. You have not treated me fairly, because your blatant WP:SOCKing to avoid the scrutiny is not a fair play. As long as you step up on the plate with your main account, why do you believe that such WP:Gameing the system should be treated otherwise. Please don't think that you're behaving civilly. My patience to your insistence is not infinite as you've already heard.--Caspian blue 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please show me the rule which forbids editing unregistered or/and unlogined? As far as I know, I have not created any sock accounts, have I? 95.24.189.172 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you present valid arguments to counter the policy, WP:SOCK? Would you demonstrate how come your socking counters WP:SCRUTINY? Are you insisting that you're unregistered editor? Clearly, when you edited Che Guevara article on Russian Wiki, you logged into your main account, but you have not here unless you can not move articles with the IP socks since you faced your edits were reverted by editors here. Your WP:ROLE playing with the sock IPs to avoid the people's attention who know your edits are not "legitimate" usage of socking. Please answer this new questions.--Caspian blue 18:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you win. I, Elmor_rus, hereby admit that I was editing Wikipedia unlogined. I, indeed, wanted to avoid the scrutiny, but not by everyone, but only but you personally (arguing with you is rather exhausting). I was unaware that such behavior was forbidden here in English Wikipedia, because there is no such rule in Russian Wikipedia where I usually edit. Caspian blue, congratulations, you've got me. From now on, I will edit using my main account (or, probably, using the global account user:Elmor). However, this does not solve our dispute about the article. Shall we resume it? Elmor_rus (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the acknowledgment on the WP:SOCK policy and admission of your violation. The sock policy are similarly applied crossing over multiple Wikipedia projects and Russian Wikipedia has Checkuser board. Even if your excuse were true, that does not explain your socking to Korean Wikipedia. I'm not that much active there nor mainly edit the topics that you edit, and all of your edits there were reverted by other many editors including several admins. Given your editing pattern, arguing with you and your sock IPs has been indeed "exhausting" my patience. If you argue that socking has nothing to do with solving the content dispute, I tell you, at lease I can continue the discussion on your main account page from now.--Caspian blue 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. I still suggest that you find 3 sources which state that An was not a criminal. If you do, I will consider the "criminal" infobox to be an inappropriate one. 08:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmor rus (talk • contribs)