User talk:~2026-27495-3: Difference between revisions

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to J. Mark Ramseyer. Doing so violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi

This is fact, and not a personal opinion. You are blatantly mistaken. In fact, it was we (a group of scholars) who communicated with the publication and convinced the publication, though reason and discussion, that the article is in fact objective. We have all email records of this communication. As such, this clearly adheres to Wiki’s neutral stance.

Would you care to attempt to refute this now? Please only speak at times when you have factually grounded comments, and not in temperament. At other times, be mindful that it’s best to observe reticent behavior. ~2026-27495-3 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We tie facts to sources and you added none. All you did is make a bunch of claims without providing any evidence. And the way the claims were written clearly attempt to advocate your belief in something; on wikipedia we’re supposed to write in a dry impartial way, without trying to seem like we favor a particular viewpoint ourselves.

Also, we determine neutrality not by minority opinion or by applying our own reasoning, but by what the majority of reliable sources are saying. You need to demonstrate your claims are the viewpoint of the majority if you wish to assert them as relative fact grapesurgeon (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of claims, no, just one. – First error

We tie, no, we are not speaking generically. – second error

Evidence – I do have evidence, first hand evidence – third error.

The way that claims are written, you cannot substantiate this, it’s simply an attempt to bias yoru discussion / attacks – fourth error (you’re not doing too well at this stage, “are we”)

Also, we determine neutrality not by minority opinion or by applying our own reasoning, ,well, this is a clear attack on the journal editors who draw on their years of observing majority voice , fifth error

My work has been published extensively, as work that defends Mark’s position as objective and correct. In fact, scholars such as Eckert have defended this position of South Korea’s fabricated Nationalism and narratives through their false attacks on Japan. There is the evidence you need (two Harvard scholars defending this perspective) – Sixth error/

Do you need me to continue, or shall you continue to embarrass yourself and present your childsish ideologies? If so, continue.

I have said all i need to.

Enjoy. ~2026-27495-3 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the condescension. Nothing I said to you was rude or aggressive; while I did question what you had written, that is literally a part of Wikipedia’s design. On the other hand, disproportionate aggression can get you blocked from participating on Wikipedia.

Claims are decomposable to smaller claims; they are generally not discrete. This is a really semantic point; not sure why you brought it up.

We literally cannot use first hand evidence on Wikipedia unless you publish it somewhere. All we have is your word to go off; that’s not useful to us. I can claim that Putin is my best friend and insist I have proof (that I show nobody), but unless I have proof that can be seen, my word is worth literally nothing.

Also, we determine neutrality not by minority opinion or by applying our own reasoning, ,well, this is a clear attack on the journal editors who draw on their years of observing majority voice , fifth error it isn’t; it’s possible they’re right but you’ve provided literally no evidence of this being true other than by insisting it is.

Sixth error this wasn’t even countering anything I had said; I’m not really sure where I contradicted your point on that.

Again, keep this civil. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon its entirely possible this is an IP from banned sockpuppeter David Pete (you can look at my investigations here). We of course only have two edits to go off of, but “David Pete” or whatever generic English name this person comes up with constantly uses obtuse, vague and flowery language to try to muddy the points of Japanese war crimes (which you can see based off how they’re pushing the works of a revisionist historian) and also constantly criticizes “South Korean nationalism” when they’re entire critique/intent is to just POV push and muddy war crime facts. They’re not attacking South Korean nationalism from an objective/good intent or from an academic lens but so that they can squeeze in their own nationalism.

Their two edits here definitely fit that pattern, I believe “David Pete” had cited Ramseyer before in previous edits such as here and here. I find it a bit too coincidental that they recently started pivoting to Ramseyere and then we get this IP that pushes exactly the same editing style and agenda.

I had always suspected “david pete” was from a non-English speaking country, likely Japan, who was just an indidivdual who was POV pushing with racist intent/historical revisionism but its far more worrying if this IP is connected to David Pete and their claims are true. It indicates they are part of a coordinated effort (they flat out say they are part of a group of “scholars”) to blatantly distort wikipedia. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Better to file an SPI if you think this is true rather than make the accusation here grapesurgeon (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I read but 3 words of your text, and that was all I needed to read and intended to read. It’s very interesting that you have now turned this into a personal tension. While I did not in any way form a condescending discourse, it is impossible to do otherwise when the writer is a child. Your incessant and very adolescent comments are comical at best, and evidence a lineage of adolescent temperament.

Again, I’ve not gone through and read more than 3-4 words. You have simply sided with very Nationalist Zealots, who have suded with a century of fabircation.

I’ve won the battle, anything you say from here on is superfluous and redundant, and again will not be read. ~2026-27495-3 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Please do not add commentary,”

Hillarious, banal fascism.

“Wiki’s neutral intentions,” yet you remove the comments by others and retain yours.

My friend, every single word of yours is refutable, every syllable in fact. May I suggest that you consider another profession to sustain yourself.
~2026-27495-3 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ~2026-27495-3. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation‘s terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.– Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]