en User talk:ShinyAlbatross

Sneaky removal of content at International marriage (Japan)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at International marriage (Japan), you may be blocked from editing. 2603:8080:1F00:518:FC41:3866:EC40:EA86 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that there seems to be a strange coincidence of spam edits that precede your edits on multiple articles, all of which are consistent with your POV. If you have undeclared Wikipedia accounts (sleeper sockpuppets), have been involved in WP:MEATPUPPETRY, or if you have participated in prior vandalism, you may be banned for not disclosing this. 2603:8080:1F00:518:FC41:3866:EC40:EA86 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate being accused this way. I've done my research and acted in good faith. If you don't like it, debate me on the facts. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New user?

You are posting identical viewpoints and their strange behavior seems to follow your edits wherever you go.

Daz Ket made several contributions to divorce data at International marriage (Japan) that are very suspicious. For example:

The divorce rate for marriages between Japanese husbands and American wives is 24%. [1]

You have also made the nearly identical claim:

Japanese husband, American wife: 24.4% [2]

Daz ket also deleted the same paragraphs (including sourced info from Appleby and Asahiro Editorial Board) that you deleted at International marriage (Japan):

2023 edits by Daz ket's alt account: [3], [4]
2024 edit by ShinyAlbatross: [5]

Daz ket's alternative username "Great sexpat yellow fever living in the US 452" sounds very similar to the activity at Asian fetish that preceded your edit there by just a day. The banned usernames there include "Keir Starmer hypersexulises Asian women" and "Fetishise Asians or Hate Asians - Your Choice".

What I'm saying is that this looks pretty suspicious and I really don't believe you're a new user like you claim to be. So I'm offering you the opportunity to admit or deny this without a sockpuppet investigation. I'm also pinging @HJ Mitchell: since they were the one who banned the "Great sexpat" vandal account. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL okay, this is a great conspiracy now, is it? No, I'm not any of those users, and sounds like I wouldn't agree with any of their views either based on those usernames. I also didn't "claim" the 24.4% stat, I used it as an illustration of bad statistics.

Your problem with me seems to be that I don't agree with you. You need to stop turning this into a personal attack. Have you considered the reason these things have been removed again and again might be because others see issue with them, too? And perhaps they just didn't have the time or resources to mount a quasi-legalistic prosecution of the facts, which does not mean they were wrong? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

I have removed your Third Opinion request after looking at the history of Asian fetish. You said that you had a disagreement with an IP editor. Edits to the article have been redacted, and the article has been semi-protected due to sockpuppetry. The redaction (revdel) said that it was purely disruptive material. I think that means that the blocking and protecting admin concluded that the IP editor was a troll. I suggest that you continue normal editing, and either ignore any unregistered editors, or request semi-protection against them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, will take it under advisement. I'm a new editor trying to deal with this properly and don't want to be party to an unproductive edit war. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]