User talk:原口由夫

Welcome!

Hello, 原口由夫, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately, your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Japanese; did you know there is a Japanese Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts!

ようこそ!

原口由夫さん、はじめまして。英語版ウィキペディアへようこそ。英語版ウィキペディアへの投稿はいつでも歓迎いたしますが、残念ながら今回原口由夫さんに執筆いただいた英文は英語版ウィキペディアの水準を満たしておりません。もしよろしければ、日本語版ウィキペディアの方へ投稿していただければ幸いです。ウィキペディア･プロジェクトへご参加くださり、ありがとうございます。 -- EvergreenFir (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Comfort women. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. Spencer^T•C 13:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here 原口由夫 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Several fundamental misunderstandings on the purpose of Wikipedia. 1) Your persistent addition of your own translation is highly promotional and violates the principles of conflict of interest. 2) The book in question was never published in English, and here on Wikipedia we have a strict policy on no original research. 3) Even if the English version was reputably published (in which it is not), primary sources are seldom used; when they are used, they need to conform to the relevant policy. Alex Shih (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dear Mr. Spencer and the stuff of Wikipedia,

Here I would like to submit my opinion against the blocking of my account for editing on Wikipedia. The text I tried to add is an excerpt translation into English from its Japanese version, translated from the modern Korean version by Kyoto University professor emeritus HORI Kazuo and Kobe University professor KIMURA Kan, who were the co-researchers of this "Diary" with Soeul University professor emeritus AN Byeong-jik, who translated this document to modern Korean. The Japanese version was published on the internet by the names of both Japanese professors and even the link to the text (pdf file) is placed on Wikipedia itself (see, "Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager", 'Release details', '日本軍慰安所管理人の日記 [Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager] (in Japanese). Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research. August 1, 2013. alternate link.') I have already acquired the approval of usage of this document in Japanese version from both professors, HORI kazuo and KIMURA kan, in 2016. As its volume is quite big and many parts not related to the comfort women are included, I made its excerpt of 135 days and translated it into English for a contribution to the knowledge on the comfort women issue. It is quite regrettable that still there is no English translation. Therefore, I tried to publicize this primary document on the Internet. Though it was the first time for me to make home pages, I managed to create three sites for this excerpt, two home pages and one blog. It is regrettable that I made mistakes to have tried to make a link to those sites. As I created three sites, I changed several times the site to be linked, wondering the better site to be linked. Then, I received a notice from Binksternet, saying making a link to a private site was not admitted. Therefore, finally I managed to upload the PDF file of the excerpt on my site, and created a link to that site for Wikipedia. I have no intention for advertising or promotion as was stated in the message of Mr. Spencer. I hope the blocking of my account be removed and have chance to place the link to the document as this is a very important primary source which provides a first-hand account on the life of the comfort women and contributes quite a lot for further consideration on the comfort women issue.

Yours sincerely,

HARAGUCHI Yoshio

Japanese and Korean name order is family name and given name in order in this statement as in the excerpt.

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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No unblock rationale offered. Please see Alex's decline above. IMO. you must agree to not link to your own work or to the book in question regardless of translation or lack thereof. You must explain WP:RS in your own words. I would suggest a topic ban on comfort women. Please tell us what other areas you'd like to edit. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dear Mr. Alex Shih,

Thank you for your message. I understand the policy you mentioned. However, your saying, "persistent addition," is not correct as I explained. I just made mistakes to repeat the editing. That's all. Anyway I appreciate your decision and follow it.

Best regards,

HARAGUCHI Yoshio

Can I please ask you not to keep putting {{Unblock}} templates inside headings, as it makes it difficult to edit the page section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

templae

Aii right. 原口由夫 (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial English translation of ' Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager'

Based on the information you supplied in your unblock requests, I have some comments about your partial translation of Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager into English.

First, the Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager is used by Japanese nationalists in an attempt to normalize the comfort women issue. The book is used to show that comfort women had medical care, that they enjoyed some limited friendships and small pleasures, with the conclusion that the program was not so bad. This is put forward by Japanese nationalists despite the fact that the comfort women were mostly tricked or forced into sex slavery, and were prevented from leaving. They were made into slaves.

You have selected 135 days of the diary to translate into English, but why not translate the whole thing? I wonder if the untranslated parts reveal pertinent facts about the brothel manager, making him less reliable. And what method do we have to ensure that your English translation is fair and neutral, free of bias?

You should know that Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, so there's no good reason to put a primary source as a link at the bottom of the comfort women article. Japanese nationalists have repeatedly tried to emphasize primary sources at that article, because primary sources are open to revisionist interpretations. That's why we keep removing problematic primary sources in an effort to build the article on a foundation of mainstream scholarly interpretations published in secondary sources.

When you are unblocked, you should not try to restore the link to your partial English translation. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]