User talk:Logitech95

You deceive me again.
First off, only the first paragraph is referenced and the other has nothing. I check the three sources that you inserted to the article. All are not from reliable sites, and the two are cached contents. I don't think Wikpedia accepts this unreliable cached links. The first two have no author name dead links. However, these are the basically SAME one with slight editing. Besides, I also read Nikolayevsk Incident, according to the article, In January 1920, the town was surrounded by partisans around 4 thousand strong under the command of anarchist Yakov Triapitsyn, who was loosely allied with the Bolshevik Red Army., so where is the info that Koreans only killed the Japanese people?

There are no such info on the death toll of Japanese people, so how did you figure out the numbers? Besides, where are the description about brutally slaughtered by Koreans. You imply that the incident was solely done by Korean partisans unlike the Nikolayevsk Incident article. I think you really have a serious problem presenting information. I am almost fooled by this time again. Please don't abuse WP:AGF of people. You made me waste my time to check this. I doubt whether your all contributions are like this. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue, you are lucky that I cannot participate in the discussion section right now because I have been banned. First of all, you obviously have no knowledge of this field. Many Koreans volunteered to fight in the Bolshevik army during the Russian Civil War so that they can fight for the independence of Korea. Many times, these Koreans were organized into units that were led by Russian officers. One such unit attacked the city of Nikolayevsk and massacred the civilian population there. The deaths tolls are from the wikipedia article on the Nikolayevsk Incident. I never said that Koreans were alone in committing the massacre, it is true that Russians were involved. But because the article is on the topic of Korea, why would I include Russians? The same thing refers to Korean prisoner guards during World War Two, there were also many Taiwanese prisoner guards who helped the Korean guards abuse the prisoners, but why would I write about Taiwanese people in a Korean article? Kim Young Sik is a qualified expert in this field. He is the editor of two Korean publications and worked with the US military intelligence on Korean communist insurgencies. His profile can be seen here http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-Kim.html. Why would cached articles be unreliable? They are preserved formats for previous websites.

The Japanese wikipedia on the massacre at http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%BC%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 states that Russians, Koreans, and Chinese partisans were involved in the massacre. If you will allow me to, I can provide you with many Japanese sources that testify the factual accuracy of my statement. I only included English sources because I thought they were more accessible to people reading the English article, but these are scarce because there is not a lot of research done regarding the massacre by American scholars.

Surely, Wikipedia is lucky enough not suffering false information for a while by you since it is an encyclopedia. However, I am again disappointed at your lying. You claim that "your edit is PROPERLY Sourced", and why the sources do not have any number of the death toll unlike your saying? The second paragraph is also NOT properly sourced because of no citation. You're responsible for your edit, and the numbers are not even seen from the Nikolayevsk Incident article. There is no such number except the slaughter of all but 122 Japanese civilians. Why would you have to mention about Russian because the subject is on Korea? Logical flawed answer. You introduced the incident as if it is only related to Korea, however, the final and most of responsibility is upon Russia. When you eat Cheese cake topped with strawberry and coffee, can you say to friends that you only eat and drink strawberry and coffee regardless of the big portion of Cheese cake? Your own interpretation (aka. original research) as "especially brutally slaughter Japan" is much longer than "Russian partisan". Do I have no knowledge of the field? That does not justify about your falsification or mispresentation on information. As for unreliability, ask any admins about the matter, or read WP:RS, WP:V. The cached links would be gone after one or two months pass. So that is "reliable sites" by your definition. I'm not saying that the incident is a bogus. You must not confuse with "unreliable sites" and "sources". Besides, don't insert your own feeling as if you suffer the case. --Caspian blue (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my Japanese is level 0.5~1 according to the babel system here. You claim that you can read Korean, so Korean sources are also welcome. I scarcely edit myself history articles except checking cited sources to see if information is related to subject and true or not. When you edit controversial one, you know that people pay attention your edit and check it. With the inflated number of the references (basically the three are the same one), people would think that you "really" source properly. Quantity over quality in this case. --Caspian blue (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really hope you do not edit with "the sock" right now. --Caspian blue (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The information regarding "slaughtering all but 122 Japanese" can be found at the English wikipedia article on the massacre. When you massacre virtually the entire Japanese population of a village, of course that is going to be considered a brutal slaughter. Are you saying that such a massacre is not brutal at all? We are talking about extermination. If you want to include information that Chinese and Russian partisans also participated in the massacre, by all means, go ahead and edit the sentence yourself. I can't do it because I'm blocked. It doesn't change the fact that Korean partisans were brutal many times - which is the overall argument. That's your problem, you keep on fighting about small things (like numbers and words), and you completely ignore the big picture/idea (Korean partisans massacred Japanese civilians). I am not deceiving anybody, this is a fact that many Japanese historians know about.
 * I would ask if that numbers and figures are not so important, why did you try to minimize the alleged death toll argued by Iris Chang? Your attempt to minimize the number is a falsification of the book source. Did I ever say that the incident did not happen? When you edit articles, you have to stick to your sources, but you did not. Am I ignoring the big picture? Ha, I keep saying that your mispresentation on the your source so far. As for "especially ruthless toward Japanese civilian" can be also regarded your original research until you provide back up information because people can't see the evidence. Many Japanese historian "knows about" is also irrelevant if you do not provide exact sources. That is a burden of proof. Besides, don't use a sock.--Caspian blue (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I included the figure the Tokyo War Trials decided upon for the Rape of Nanking, which is 200,000. This figure is commonly accepted by almost every mainstream historian that I'm not going to even argue about it. Pick up any Western book and it will say that the traditional death toll is 200,000. Caspian Blue, please, what are you trying to argue with me? And I'm not doing any original research. Do you really not think that the massacre of hundreds of innocent Japanese civilians is not ruthless? What are you trying to say? The massacre is justified and light-hearted? Any massacre of that proportion is ruthless, just like it is brutal. Do you have no heart?--Logitech95 (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have no heart? Be careful about your language. If some people say like you have no brain because you don't get any point from people's saying, how would you feel? When you reverted the Japanese war crimes, I demanded you have to provide your own source, since the cited information is her book and her claim on the death toll. Your problem is you don't stick to your source. Don't expect that people know what you know. How would we know if you don't provide clear information? Any form of masscare is hideous, but you always emphasize how brutal ethnic Koreans were. Besides, still you fail to prove your claim. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, will you stop bothering me if (once my ban is lifted) I agree to re-write my section about the Nikolayevsk Incident so that I write that Koreans, Chinese, and Russian partisans all participated in the massacre so that other people do not get the misunderstanding that only Koreans participated in it? Also, I never added Iris Chang's book as a source, the only thing I can think about is the somebody else did before me and I forgot to delete it after I made the change. Are you still asking me to provide you with a source that 200,000 is the traditional number? How about John Toland's Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Rising Sun? Or how about the Tokyo War Trials itself? These are sources I can think just from the top of my head, don't expect me to do a detailed research online for you about this when you yourself can easily find the 200,000 number online easily through google or whatever.

And also, please do not accuse me of using proxy servers. I am not that net savvy and do not know how to use those. If I did, I am sure I would have used them earlier (such as when I was banned before). Why must you always be blaming me for such malicious attacks? These are almost personal attacks. --Logitech95 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All the same argument again. When you inserted two bogus (real bogus) inline citations to Korean war crimes, you said the same denial comment: I just copied others job, so that is not my responsibility. When you edit any article, you have to take responsibility for what you insert or delete. That's why I requested you to add your own sources for the death toll. The traditional number is irrelevant until you provide and add it to the article. You alway assume that people know what you know. What if people follow the inline text, they'll find that the description is not matched to the original source. Then they would distrust Wikipedia, so you're responsible for that. I really apologize if you're not Shawnjw15. However other allegation you falsely accuse me has nothing to do with me. I have not said that you're proxy users, if I did, please show me diffs. If you can't, you have to apologize for your malicious attacks and blames. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue's personal attack
Caspian Blue, I have just looked at the Korea under Japanese article and you are taking advantage of my ban by writing attacks against me. You are accusing me of using other IP addresses and of using other accounts because other people are restoring what I have written. You have used your friend Manacpowers to add further lies. He states that the Japanese source somebody else has included says it calls the Nanking Massacre a lie! I looked through the source and it says nothing about that. The Japanese history book that was included doesn't even talk about Nanking at all! The person who sourced it also made a mistake, the title of the book is Manshu Jihen Shina Jihen Nichi-Bei Sensou (Manchuria Incident, China Incident, Japan-US War), not Showa no Shinjitsu (The Truth of the Showa). I want you ask Manacpowers to show proof that the source calls the Nanking massacre a lie if you have any dignity. He is making lies to make the source seem unreliable. Now you have angered me by not only accusing me of false crimes, but by seeking the help of others who are willing to lie. Have you no shame?

If I wanted to include Japanese sources, I could find so many other sources. As I have already told you, the Japanese wikipedia article on the massacre talks about Korean participation. I would have just linked to that.

I demand that your retract your accusations from the discussion section. My articles may have controversies regarding POV, but to accuse me of breaching wikipedia rule through proxy servers is just wrong. If I knew how to use proxy servers, why would I do so now for the first time when I have been blocked other times? I also demand that you ask your friend Manacpowers to prove his assertion, and take action for lying if he can't. If you can do this, I will have more respect in you. --Logitech95 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech95, your continued personal attacks
What a nice Sunday as I see your personal attacks again. I have not even checked out the history of the article. I had a doubt you may use a sock account due to apt the timing and uncanny backup sourcing as if the person was reading this thread. You said you would provide Japanese sources for clarification and he or she did it except the source still failing to show the death toll. If the account is not you, I sincerely apologize for that. However, you falsely accuse me that I accused you of using proxy servers. I have not accused you of using proxy servers at all. Please show me evidences that I did. The supposedly open proxies have no history except the edit on Korea under Japanese rule. In that case, they're called single purpose account or such IP here and are subject to get a suspicion. Your sources are from "unreliable site", and the contents and source are not matched. If I have a bad faith, I would let Fut.Perf. know of all these first. These conversation actually waste my time a lot because you don't admit your way of sourcing and editing. When you make controversial edits, you have to be prepared for what you do. Your souring and writing tone are not sticking to your sources. That is a big violation of Wikpedia policy.

You also accuse me that I'm related to Manacpowers and collude with him. Ha, nope. I helped him to participate in meditation of Taekwondo for his difficulty with English, and his hot temper, because other editors asked me to help him or calm him down. His understanding of text frequently causes his own misunderstanding of others' statement. If you look at the history of his user page, you will see that I gave him warning countless time whenever he reverts article too fast, or makes disruptive edits for nationalistic intentions. Maybe I'm the one having given warning messages to him the most. I believe any drastic edits are good for the reputation of WikiProject Korea, or Korean editors.

Your assertion on whatever he edited is in no relation with mine. When he made edit warring with somebody yesterday, I didn't side his edit at all even thought his opponent looked very suspicious and uloaded copyviolated image to Commons. I'm very sensitive at image policy and copy vio. So I gave the Japanese user a warning on copyvio, that's why I caught up their edit warring. I have not sided Manacpowers claims on their edit-warred articles, because I don't agree with any of Manac's edit or the Japanese user. See Talk:Kowtow, you should apologize for your false accusation. I also demand that you ask your friend Manacpowers to prove his assertion, and take action for lying if he can't. If you can do this, I will have more respect in you. --> I'm not a delegate of him at all and your demand is insulting because your bad faith accusation is based on your wrong belief and insults against me. ''Now you have angered me by not only accusing me of false crimes, but by seeking the help of others who are willing to lie. Have you no shame?'' --> Again, the repeated personal attacks. It makes me furious again. You made ad hominen attacks as accusing I have no heart because I pointed out your way of adding your own interpretation. Now you attack I did shameful things by colluding with others or letting somebody say a lie. You must apologized for those false allegation and continued personal attacks.

Did I even say that your addition is "bogus" as you keep insisting that I said so. From the first, I come to here for your POV and misrepresentation with sources, and your dishonest edit summaries. However, you're talking another story. If the user has email, you can directly contact him. If you have a dignity --> Even if I have a high dignity, I don't bear your insult and not your servant. If you want to talk with him, you have to nicely and politely ask me to do so. As long as sources are related to the main subject, neutral, factual, I don't delete them. However, your edits do not follow Wikipedia core policies. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Block extension
Your block has been extended to one month due socking, block evasion, and topic ban breaking. See this — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)