Kamakatsu

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am NOT Banzaiblitz. I would like to make this perfectly clear. Rather, I am his brother, and have slightly more moderate viewpoints as he does, as you can see in the discussion. Although he asked me to join this discussion, I am not advocating his figures; rather, I have my own opinions on what is right and what is wrong. Please unblock me ASAP. Sorry for the misconfusion. Kamakatsu (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

As I said, I'm not Banzaiblitz. Blackguard also calls me a "lone revisionist"; a simple search on the talk page will reveal that a consensus was reached earlier among 11 participants (with only 1 dissenter). Banzaiblitz (my brother) and CurtisNaito both pushed for an estimate within the 40,000-200,000 range. They were able to convince the others that that was the case. I also find it quite funny that me misspelling "Banzaiblitz" is used as evidence against me. Kamakatsu (talk) 1:37 am, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sock. Whether you're the same person as Banzaiblitz or his brother editing from the same computer is actually pretty irrelevant; for all intents and purposes, you are abusing multiple accounts. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:55, 25 February 2014 (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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Talk:Nanking Massacre, you may be blocked from editing. I caught you at least three times fabricating information when replying to me today, which makes it very hard to continue to assume good faith in you. Remotepluto (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You say I'm fabricating information, but have you actually looked inside the book itself? http://imgur.com/JrA3Aqp Your screenshot of the page contained the 200,000 figure, and yet when I searched for 200,000 it didn't show up as a search result. Why? Because its just a mere preview. You need to be more careful when you accuse people of falsifying information; realize that online books only return SOME of the search results, NOT all. Furthermore, you say I fabricated information 3 times, when this is the only possible time I could've done it. On the topic of source falsification; have you looked at Snorri's table of estimates? I've repeatedly been saying that Marvin Williamsen has not given an estimate and rather Frank Dorn; your screenshot gives evidence for this. Once again, please don't accuse someone else for falsifying information if you aren't 100% sure, especially with malicious intent such as trying to keep a person on the opposing side of a debate blocked to achieve a false consensus. Kamakatsu (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what, dear Kamakatsu? I happen to live near a library in my small town and earlier today I walked over to check it out. It happened to have that Frank Dorn book, lucky me huh? I'd thus love to provide a photo of Page 93, where the 200,000 number occur. (http://imgur.com/OC6nKsl) You claimed that, your quote was "in the succeeding paragraph to his quote", which is also shown in entirety in my picture. So I would like you to point out to me the sentence you quoted, which is "However, as this was a rough estimate that I gathered from people fleeing the scene, it should not be discussed within academic circles". BTW: if you care to read that paragraph at all, your bro rang me pretty well with what is actually described in that paragraph except for that he wields a keyboard in lieu of a katana. Remotepluto (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It says in your screenshot itself that it's a death toll of "Shanghai AND Nanking." Please don't entertain us with your false pretenses. More importantly, you still avoid the fact that Marvin Williamsen HAS NOT given an estimate. Snorri refused to remove it from the table, even if I repeatedly showed him bountiful evidence that visually refuted it. If you're going to accuse me of fabricating information, I encourage you to do the same with Snorri's table of estimates. I do, however, applaud you for making the effort to go to the nearest library to check. Kamakatsu (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh don't you bluff me again. The subtitle for that chapter was "Shanghai and Nanking", which appeared on top of every other page from 67 to 102. At page 93 it was describing events in Nanking, which happened after the glorious JIA had conquered Shanghai. Reading pages 91-92 will easily address your concerns on this, but I assume you know 他人に迷惑をかけない so I won't bother uploading photos.

As for the Williamsen issue, Snorri's use of that source could be questionable, but neither did s/he blatantly fabricate quotations out of nowhere, nor did s/he use false information when replying to me (You did this at least three times to me. I know where they are, and I don't think you really want me to list them.), therefore I won't bother either. I'm sorry, I'd rather take my time to learn the 12+ ways of calling one's older brother in Japanese. Remotepluto (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia admins were neutral, right? Honestly, some pro-China admin decides to block my little brother (who is 16, by the way) for "wildly tendentious editing" when Miracle Dream does the same thing (you admit it too) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miracle_dream#Rebooted_discussion. Granted, most of my entertainment in this discussion stemmed from reading the comments of Miracle Dream (You my misrepresent comments again!!! If you again reply I report you!!!) and MtBell(I just imagine angry William Hung, he was apparently REALLYYY pissed about the first consensus). As for the first paragraph of your response, you know full well why you won't "bother uploading photos." For the second paragraph, everything has to be about you or your chinaman brothers, right? Snorri replied using false information when he replied to my brother about Williamsen. And I would actually love for you to list the three times that I replied using false information. I'm waiting, dear Remotepluto, preach the gospel! Anyways, I hope you felt good joining late and ganging up on a 16 year old when there were three already on one side (Your first 6 comments got SHUT DOWN by my little bro, guess you're relieved that he's blocked now). Clearly, the only way the Chinese side was going to win was to use underhanded tactics such as censoring the opposition (like some country) and just not mentioning the earlier consensus. Victory achieved through dirty tactics must taste terrible (JW, what does dog taste like?). Enjoy the warm beer while you can, though. Kamakatsu (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• A single-purpose editor is known for a fact to have used a sockpuppet account. He openly states that he intends to continue to evade his block. A new account is created very shortly after he has made that statement, and proceeds to edit in ways so astonishingly similar to the editing of that editor that it is blocked as another blatantly obvious sockpuppet of the same editor. In fact, it is his brother. You may be interested to learn how often, when an account appears to be without doubt a sockpuppet of a user with a history of sockpuppetry, it is in fact the other editor's little brother! Occasionally it is a friend, less often a cousin, and very rarely some other relative, such as a son or a sister, but far more often a brother. In fact, it is so common for poor innocent little brothers to be wrongly accused of sockpuppetry that there's a whole page about it, at Wikipedia:My little brother did it. You may like to read it, and perhaps your "brother" would too. There's also a section at the bottom of that page which should give you a pretty good idea how likely this unblock request is to succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually his older brother. Honestly though, my account was neither compromised nor stolen, as the article implies. Rather, this is my account, and Banzaiblitz is my brothers. Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty?" In this case, you have no idea whether I am his brother or not. And I don't think he's editing anymore, nor did he state that he was going to continue to evade his block. With the Checkuser confirming that this account is clean (shucks!), you should unblock me ASAP. You're an asshole, JamesBWatson, and it's power-hungry admins like you that restrict Wikipedia from reaching its full potential. Kamakatsu (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)