Windersteinburg

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm Benlisquare. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Second Sino-Japanese War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Hellow! I obey your advise, and add citation and re-add whole sentence. If any problem, please tell me. Thanks.

3R and Sockpuppet warning

Please note that you have made 3 reverts today to Second Sino-Japanese War and are at risked of being blocked if you do it again, because of the Wikipedia WP:3R rule. Please read the rule. The problem basically is that you are using revisionist Japanese historiography by Nakamura that is rejected by scholars and historians outside Japan as a defense of Japan's wartime atrocities. Your edit uses language that was originally designed to stir up violent Japanese hatred of China. There is the idential text added by an IP address in Tokyo 182.250.124.169 that may also cause you serious trouble if Wiki finds it was you, see WP:SOCK. Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Second Sino-Japanese War. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Second Sino-Japanese War was changed by Windersteinburg (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.875261 on 2014-05-20T03:03:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why "The problem basically is that you are using revisionist Japanese historiography by Nakamura that is rejected by scholars and historians outside Japan as a defense of Japan's wartime atrocities. " is problem? Wiki will oppress freedom of speech? To introduce both sides opinion is the most objective way, isn't it?~~Windersteinburg~~

Wikipedia requires a reliable secondary source and that is missing. Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The book has full of secondary sourses. If you don't claim an article of New York Times which obviously lack a secondary sources, Your logic is completely corrupsed. And you said its problem because of revisionist's book, not it lacks a secondary sources. What you're saying have a lots of confusion. If you're administrater, please be everything more clear. ~~Windersteinburg~~

The y have to be RELIABLE secondary sources and not items regarded as fringe propaganda by scholars outside Japan. Rjensen (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC

What you're saying is that Nakamura's book isn't the reliable source. But wait, Nakamura IS reliable. His argument is NOT propaganda. He's a serious scholar. Stop looking down on him!Windersteinburg (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reported for 3R and sock puppet violations

Your violations have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Rjensen (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:26, 20 May 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

When I was blocked, I really did not understand Wikipedia’s rule. I even did’t know the existence of talk pages. I just knew the edit history pages. I also didn’t know the rule of sockpuppet. But now about 6 years has passed, and I fully understand these rules. I also understands if someone try to edit major changes in wikipedia, he/she has to discuss in talk page. I will continue to study the rules on editing wikipedia. So I will never violate wikipedia rules like 6 years ago. Please consider my request seriously.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts and hardly mention this in your unblock request. You didn't need to know our policies to know that sort of activity was inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2020 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for comment, Yamla. I’ll explain why I madr multiple account. At that time, I probably had paranoia that Korean and Chinese people tried to distort history in Wikipedia so I had to correct these distorted articles to true one. But everytime after I corrected articles, my corrections were vanished. At that time, I really couldn’t understand why my corrections vanished after some period passed. I know that’s because I didn’t read talk pages now. But I didn’t know the existence of talk pages at that time. One day, suddenly, my account had been banned. I became not to edit wikipedia. At that time, I thought that the ban was harassment by some Korean or Chinese who hated me. So to continue editing wikipedia, I decided to make new account. I really didn’t think it was bad thing and violated Wikipedia’s rule on sock puppet. But now I fully understand the situation in those days and I don’t have paranoia on history anymore. So I will never violate Wikipedia rules. Please re consider the decision. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2020 (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.

I’m indeed the sock puppet of the account of Stanislawlemlemlem. But in the talk page, they said the expiry period of Stanislawlemlemlem would be 6 months. Nevertheless, when I searched by using “check the list of active blocks”, it was written “no expiry set”. Likewise, in this Windersteinburg’s talk page, they said the period of expiry would be 24 hours. But when I searched, the expiry period was not setted. And in user’s page of both account, it was written that the account was blocked indefinitely. It is contradiction. The time has passed 6 years since then. More than 24 hours and 6 months. I now deeply remoese my acts of 6 years ago. My paranoia that had thrusted me gone forever. I studied how editing wikipedia works. I’ll never make sock puppet account. So please unblock this account. User:Windersteinburg (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the unblocked template above to a comment here. SQL^{Query me!} 16:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)