User talk:Syngmung

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Syngmung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War

Good job your additions with references are quite good, keep it up. We always need users to Be Bold!!!!!!! If you ever need any help feel free to contact me on my talk page. Sadads (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!

Non-English

Syngmung, I encourage you to continue working on the Korean War article. However, using non-English references is a problem. Please look at WP:NONENG for Wikipedia policy. In your most recent edit, you say 60,000 ROK soldiers died of starvation. But the reference you use does not support this claim. Can you provide an English language reference for this (and other) material? Thank you. --S. Rich 04:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See last paragraph in this source.
양곡과 피복 등을 빼돌려 약 9만여명이 추위와 배고픔,질병 등으로 사망했다.
Foods and clothes were embezzled, about 90,000 people died by hunger, cold and disease.
Could you use google translate? Translation is not well. Or ask korean readers.
Thank you for advice. English source are limited about non US related incidents. See the Korean War, the page devote enormous space to No Gun Ri Massacre, however the massacre is a single incident. There are many incident, but English source don't report other incidents except for bodo league which also US related one. I think English media are tendentious.
You are most certainly welcome. True, the machine translations do not do well. And Wikipedia policy does not address that problem. And even Korean speaking editors make mistakes in their English translations. So Wiki does not rely on "self-publishing", which occurs when a single person seeks to translate. Also, relying on the ja or ko versions of Wikipedia is a mistake. See [1]. Best regards. --S. Rich 14:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Syngmung-shi -- Wikipedia says: "Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, editors may supply their own, subject to consensus, with the original posted alongside or in a footnote. Copyright restrictions permitting, translations published by reliable sources are preferred to those provided by Wikipedians." [2] Your recent edits do not follow this guideline. Also, you made changes which were not minor, but labeled them as minor.--S. Rich 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope I was a help. tell me if there is anything else I can do to help you. (Aerowikipedian (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Aerowikipedian, Thank you very much!! Srich32977, This edition seems minor editon, I edited little. However, your sedulous efforts to improve the articles and me are very good. Thank you, the articles improved in a short time.--Syngmung (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Defense Corps Incident

Glad if I could be of some help in finding some more English sources. Keep up the good work. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Syngmung (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

All of the Vietnam-related articles that you've created, it would be better if you renamed those articles to the names with Vietnamese diacritical marks. (e.g.: Go Dai massacre to Gò Dài massacre, Ha My massacre to Hà Mỹ massacre). 207.233.67.8 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know proper Vietnamese diacritical marks. If you know the proper marks, you would rename the articles.--Syngmung (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul National University Hospital Massacre

In the above article, were the people buried or burned alive? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

산채로 묻힌 buried alive was written both Seoul National University Hospital 2010-06-04 and SEGYE 2006-08-03.--Syngmung (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hello. Regarding File:Hinomoto Oniko.jpg, you cannot use this image anywhere else outside of the Hinomoto Oniko article, per Wikipedia policy on fair use images. The image is a fair use copyrighted image, and does not share the same freedoms on Wikipedia as a freely licensed image. Refer to WP:FAIRUSE for further details. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.--Syngmung (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Let me know if you have any questions to ask, I'll be glad to help out. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations

Regarding your change from "Senkaku Islands" to "Senkaku/Diaoyu", please note that this issue has been discussed at great length on Wikipedia, so much so that we eventually had to have the Arbitration Committee intervene. After a community wide RfC, it was decided that "Senkaku Islands" is, in fact, the English name of the islands as used in sources. Furthermore, An uninvolved admin, based on the sanctions put in place by Arbcom, said that the matter may not even be discussed again until 2013, because it was wasting the community's time and every single time it was raised, the result was to use the SI name. Please don't change that name back again. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, imformation. I did not want to edit war, so I edited both name. but already settled. ok.--Syngmung (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Syngmung. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 08:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Yoon Chang-jung

Thanks for helping to improve this article. It is now at T:TDYK; feel free to improve it further! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please remember that making personal attacks as you did here and here is unacceptable per WP:NPA. Unsubstantiated claims of nationalist sentiment and vandalism are personal attacks. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is not personal attack, cos Rape of Nanking is no relation to prostitute for the US military, but you raised. So I replied what you could understand your own comment. The second link is the true, you distorted the sourced contents.[3] The source clarifys the official name. If I left the distorted sourced contents, the edition kept vandalizing the sentence and went against the source. You should think what your doing before you edit the pages.--Syngmung (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Main purpose of this notice was to simply explain you what counts a personal attack on wikipedia. Rape of Nanking and US military are completely irrelevant. The problem in the first diff was your claim that I have anti-Japanese bias. I do not have one. As about vandalism, please check the policy. Please do not make such claims about any contributors because that will bring you a trouble. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. Happy editing, too!--Syngmung (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yoon Chang-jung

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied my comment on the page. See.--Syngmung (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rape during the liberation of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resuming edit warring after expiration of last block and canvassing, as you did at Rape during the liberation of France. 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.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have already been blocked as edit war. It's a good experience. However, this time block is unhappy. Because I havent got into unreasonable edit war since the first block. But the SPA raised my former issues, which were not the this time issue. And before this time block, the issue was talking in ANI, but there was no sufficient discussions by third persons.[4] Besides, the related article contents have been raised by historians and medias for years, not only a single historian view in 2013. But some users are arguing as only a single historian view. It is sad, people dont read the sources, but approve some users OR comments. See Fabrice Virgili(2002) Shorn Women: Gender and Punishment in Liberation France, Alice Kaplan (2005) The Interpreter, Guardian (2007), J. Robert Lilly (2007) Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe in World War II, BBC 2009,William Hitchcock (2009). The Bitter Road to Freedom: A New History of the Liberation of Europe, Olivier Wieviorka (2010) Normandy: From the Landings to the Liberation of Paris. About published book in 2013,Mary Louise Roberts (2013) there is a huge media reports which are reliable review, because many journalists review from their professional eyes. See New York Times, Agence France-Presse, Spiegel, Associated Newspapers, CBS news, Guardian.--Syngmung (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 9 June 2013 (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.

Note to any passing admins: This block was imposed for edit warring AND canvassing. The above unblock request doesn't address the canvassing at all, nor does it acknowledge the continued flagrant edit warring on Rape during the liberation of France. It should also be noted that the "SPA" (I'm not a SPA, but rather a kettle, and the above user who has done nothing for the last few weeks but add references to rape and prostitution to inappropriate forums is nothing other than a pot) raised these "former issues" at ANI for the purpose of discussing a topic ban, NOT a block. I did not request the block, which Bbb23 applied independently based on the evidence I provided. Also, it might be noted that the English prose Syngmung has been adding to articles is very poor: I have no problem whatsoever with non-native speakers editing English Wikipedia, but those edits generally need to be tidied up by good-faith editors later, and when there is this kind of OR/SYNTH/POV-pushing going on, it is unfair to expect other editors to tidy up the grammar and not ask "What the hell is this text even doing here? The sources don't back it up...". Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Syngmung's edits (as I outlined at ANI already) clearly indicate that he/she has not actually read Roberts, as he/she has persisted in linking a blurb from a tertiary source. No one other than Syngmung has been engaging in OR, as well. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

You have been indefinitely topic banned from editing any pages related to rape, U.S. military personnel, or U.S. military bases, broadly construed. Please see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for details.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about TRCK

Hello, Syngmung. Sorry to see that you've run into trouble here. I hope it doesn't prevent your editing in other areas of Wikipedia.

I have a question about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Korea: did the commission issue a final report in 2010 as they had planned? I haven't found any evidence of it yet. (I became interested when I read the On This Day item for June 28 about the Bodo League massacres.) Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know when they have issued their final report. But I know their activity have been restricted and their works ended in June 2010.[5][6] The research was over, thus the commission cannot help the victims family moreover.[7]Syngmung (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hi, Syngmung, welcome back. You can edit any article except some of the articles. I am sure you can improve Wikipedia.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for predictions. Tsk tsk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.182.139 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing and repeated breaches of your topic ban. 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.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 11 February 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

You commented as disruptive editing. What is the disruptive editing? Many users recovered my edition, but only one user is deleting. I don't edited US servicemen bad act, they are not to be blamed by their report No.49. Read the report No.49.[8] No one think the edition become accusation of US servicemen. Syngmung (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your topic ban is for any edit related to rape, U.S. military personnel, or U.S. military bases, broadly construed. Your editing the comfort women article was a breach of that ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (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.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phong Ni Phong Nut and Chae Myung Shin article

Please review the sources, especially in terms of Hankyurae. They frequently misinterpret their primary sources. Their articles clearly contradict what the US military reports said. There was no confirmation that the US inspector confirmed the massacre; in fact the investigation claimed that they cannot confirm if the ROKMC truly commited the massacre.

http://vietnamvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/US-Army-IG_ROK-Marines_Report_1969.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woo1693 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kim Ki-tae (military) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Ki-tae (military) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ki-tae (military) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robert Morehead Cook

Notice

The article Robert Morehead Cook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]