User talk:G72562/Archive Apr 2007

No Personal Attack

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:ShinjukuXYZ. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 常に紳士的であって下さい。意見が対立する相手であっても、敬意を忘れないで下さい。Nightshadow28 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to welcome me to Wikipedia, I'm rather more experienced than you. Instead of posting an NPA tag on my page, could you please help me deal with the actual problem, an extremely disruptive Japanese editor who seems afraid to admit any influence Korea might have had on Japan. Mackan 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Mackan on this one - please refer to the discussion page on Japanese cuisine article. Phonemonkey 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attack NOT make a false statement

Please discuss in talk page. NOT Personal Attack. Tropicaljet 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made no personal attack on you. This [1] does not constitute a personal attack. Be careful with your accusations. Mackan 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU HAVEN'T MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK? YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN ME A VANDALIST??? YOU HAVEN'T THEREATEN ME TO BE BANNED WITH NO REASON???Please teach us the reason why I will be banned with edits. Tropicaljet 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you're English is kind of hard to understand... Considering the edits you made to the comfort women article, it takes an outrageous amount of good faith not to label you a vandal... Your obnoxious comments on my talk page only strengthen that assumption.　Mackan 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd better write your opinions in talk page first. Not to write it in my talk page with threatening words. Tropicaljet 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how about this? You just stop vandalizing the article instead! If you do not want people to think you're a vandal, don't get involved in revert wars without every justifying your position. Not that you really have to though, as all the other Japanese nationalists/revisionists, your motives are perfectly clear. Mackan 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you read the talk page? I have justified every my position. I must say you'd better write your opinions in talk page first before reverting it. You only reverted the article without explanation. You are patently a vandal. I suggest you to look in a mirror. Shame on you! Tropicaljet 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are lying. Your first edit to the talk page was 09:55, 6 March, ([2]). My warning to you was written 19:08, 5 March ([3]) (time is UTC+1). Even though you have since my warning posted on the talk page (which is very welcome), you are yet to provide any sources for any of your edits. Mackan 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Osaka - Transport

Please see "Transport" - "Discussion" - "Osaka (City)".

And Please show me the evedense of "proximity of ITM to the Kobe, and Kyoto city ".

galuboo 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yakiniku dispute

Hi Mackan. I'm sorry I've been slow to address this. The one occasion I've had much time on the Wiki before now, I looked into the situation a little bit, and didn't feel up to the task. Now that I've got more of my resources about me, I'm better able to focus, and I've made a comment at Talk:Yakiniku. I wonder, would you be able to make a list of the articles being edit-warred, so I can add them all to my watchlist?

I don't know how many articles I'll be able to keep up with, but I'll start with Yakiniku and see where that leads us. Meanwhile, here's a good general strategy. The first thing to do is (a) make a dedicated talk page section, stating the dispute and the reasons for your preferred version, with a good faith invitation to dialogue. If that fails (which perhaps it already has), then (b) a content RFC is a good step. Both WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Korea should be notified, in as neutral a way as possible, about the dispute. If an editor is still reverting away from a version preferred by a clear consensus and won't be reasoned with (which may already be the case, I haven't yet looked too deeply), then (c) a user RFC makes sense. Most people can be talked to without having to go to such lengths, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your help is much appreciated. Articles where ShinjukuXYZ and his sockpuppets are edit warring

• Joji Obara. He was a Japanese citizen, and as its later stated in the article, comes from a Korean Zainichi family. He is however himself NOT Zainichi, as that term is only applied for Korean nationals living in Japan. Obara has a Japanese passport. ShinjukuXYZ wants to stress the fact that Obara's heritage is Korean. He has broken the 3RR (with sockpuppet users).
• Anti-Japanese sentiment. This article has the most problems of all. There are unsourced and POV-pushing edits made by both Koreans and Japanese. I've tried and tag statements from both sides, and removed from both sides, but it's pointless, it keeps getting reverted. A lot of the stuff ShinjukuXYZ puts up here is racist against Koreans, for example this edit [4]: "The South Korean historically does the crime by using a Japanese name" ... "When the South Korean does a bad thing in foreign countries, the South Korean says "I am Japanese". The South Korean insists that this is a small patriotism for deteriorate the reputation of Japan." (he uses a youtube video as a source..!
• Comfort women. There are some revisionists in Japan that deny the Japanese state had anything to do with the many Korean sex slaves that were recruited by the Japanese Army. Some even suggest they weren't sex slaves, but prostitutes. ShinjukuXYZ is obviously a firm believer in these revisionist statements.
• Japanese nationalism. He removed links to Japanese war crimes and Attacks on Pearl Harbour. While I'm not sure the second link should necessarily be there, ShinjukuXYZ is definately not prepared to discuss his edits.

ShinjukuXYZ has been using sockpuppets. He HAS broken the 3RR repeatedly, and he is aware of the rule. Which I guess is why he's using sockpuppets and anonymous edits all the time. While a RFC of course is an option, I do honestly not have enough time on my hands to report him, there's just so much bureaucracy to wade through all the time... I feel like just writing this message is more than I have time for. I do not care for edit wars but I've tried and avoid it, but with ShinjukuXYZ it seems unavoidable. He won't explain his edits, not even if you confront him. He will just keep on reverting. Mackan 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I encourage patience - I'll keep checking in on this whenever I'm online, and I'm confident we'll get it sorted out. Please feel free to let me know about any important developments as they arise. I'm just about to be offline for several hours, but I'll check in later tonight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Joji Obara article. After his anonymous edits were reverted (by a more responsible Japanese editor), ShinjukuXYZ simply created a new account with the single purpose of reverting the article again. [5]. Mackan 10:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ustubo Park? (Osaka city)

I'dont understand what you say....sorry.

If you will point out about Ustbo park,these are complications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osakadan

"

• Utsubo Park - Osaka

I'm sorry,I want to say "大阪科学技術館" near Utsubo park. And I saw "大阪科学技術館" of japanese Wikipedia,and jump (I push link to) english version.So It is "Osaka Science Museum" (Or "OSTEC Exhibition Hall "). What is truth ?

galuboo 10:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"

I wrote at "talk"-Osakada's,page,

I wanted to write data and it's particular.

galuboo 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Galuboo, I don't want to be rude, but it's almost entirely impossible to understand what you are trying to say. While I think your motives are noble, and while I think you are perfectly free to point out mistakes in articles on the talk pages, I'm thinking mabye it would be for the best if you would refrain somewhat from editing articles, directly, in the English Wikipedia. Mackan 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will not edit.

I express the complications.

1. I wrote an article of Utsubo Park.

2. Osakadan pointed out "there is "The science museum is not in Utsubo Koen. It is almost 1km away.",because I wrote "there is The science museum near Utsubo Park.".I know there is a museum near the park,but I didn't know english name.I looked for it from Japanese Wikipedia and looked at "Link page" at English Wikipedia.so this was "Osaka Science Museum" article.this was the reason to write that sentence ("there is The science museum near Utsubo Park.").Perhaps Osakadan thought it is incorrect.

3.I accepted his (hers?) view,I changed article ,"there is OSTEC(Osaka Science and Technology Center) near the park.".so you point out this time.

I will not come here (I'll not edit English Wikipedia),parhaps it maybe needless,these are reference materials.

If you need,please use it.And please edit good and useful articles,for not only English people but also Japanese (Osaka).

http://www.ostec.or.jp/

http://www.ocsga.or.jp/osakapark/hfm_park/06utsubo/index.html (about "rose garden")

galuboo 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on user:Ikedanobuo

Hello Mackan, thank you for your interest in Japan affair, as the founder of Japan related article noticeboard, I love to see many editors are working on this theme.

As for your contest, I would like you to give a look to http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo/e/21c5fbe4e840d266d682e16ed2815d6a, for your information. I don't know the blogger personally, but there is no good reason to think the claimed identity as a fake. To ask a source should be our principle in my opinion, on the other hand I am afraid your contest on his talkuser page sounds too strong and make him unnecessarily hostile. Thank you for your consideration.

Cheers, --Aphaia 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aphaia, thank you VERY MUCH for the link. Yes, I agree, it might have been too hostile on my part, but I was under the impression that he was a sockpuppet (now I know that he is a meatpuppeteer, and possibly a sockpuppeteer as well). I will try harder to assume good faith, at least initially, in the future. Mackan 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Prof. Ikeda is really an university professor. But his major is not history, but economics and public policy related to telecommunications and broadcasts. See ja:池田信夫. --NobuoSakiyama 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I gathered as much from his blog. Mackan 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort Women

Thanks for your comments. I haven't had the patience or the time to follow closely the edit war in the main article; if there is one thing I agree with the professor is that the incessesant anonymous edits were making the article unmanageable. It's good that the article is protected as it gives people time to figure out exactly who is saying what. It seems he is fuming that references to Hata, for example, are being deleted as part of revert warring. We've got to find a way of giving them space which allows them to present their case too - at the end of the day they too believe they have the truth and the sources on their side. Their main flaw is that they choose to ignore first hand testimonies as well as reports by organisaions such as UNHRC and International Commission of Jurists [6]. Some of Ikeda's more absurd comments (like demanding that a photo be removed because he doesn't like the caption) doesn't give me confidence that an agreement can ever be reached though. By the way I know full well that the term 従軍慰安婦 is in widespread use (I'm Japanese, not sure if you'd guessed!) so don't worry, I know what I'm on about but thanks for your support. I don't know why whether the term was used during the war is relevant or not. I'm glad you're still watching the discussion and I hope you continue to keep posting! Phonemonkey 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kansai-Ben

Then feel free to help me elaborate rather than calling it "bullshit"... Just H^{editor review} 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, we really don't need a section on how the Kansai dialect might be regarded by Japanese people who aren't from Kansai. They will inherently be poorly sourced and will never give a worldwide perspective. It's also pretty damn unencyclopedic. So no, let's not elaborate on it. Mackan 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "we". Feel free not to elaborate more on it if you like or slap a tag on it or whatever, i'm going elaborate. If you're civil while disagreeing with me, we won't have a problem. Just H^{editor review} 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought of me as uncivil, but I would like to point out that I have not made any comments on you whatsoever, only on the nature of the statements you inserted into the Kansai-ben article. While I agree "bullshit" is not the most polite word to use, I would appreciate it if you didn't take it personally. Also, on the article, you appear to be well-versed in Wiki-editing, so why would you include links which are obviously not reliable sources? Mackan 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I apologize for taking it personally. I'll try to find more reliable sources, but for now, that was the best I could find(basically just placeholder links until we can find something better). As you seem to be well versed in the subject at hand, I was wondering if you could help me. Just H^{editor review} 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I am well-versed in the subject and I must say I object staunchly to the entire section you are trying to include. While saying something of how the dialect is perceived by other Japanese people is fine (and if I'm not mistaken, already in the article), but trying to relate it to other languages is a practice bound to fail, and fail miserably. Mackan 18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I must protest on having "source placeholders" on a section that is being contested. Can I please remove the section, without having you reverting me again? If you against the odds find reliable sources I'll continue this discussion with you then and tell you more in detail why it's "bullshit". Mackan 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than calling it "bullshit", maybe we can just put a tag there and call it a work in progress. Please keep your cool, it was not my intention to stoke an argument here, only to try and build upon that section the best I could. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Just H (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

As I think I've already explained, I oppose the inclusion of the entire section, so why do you think I would think it's a good idea to put a "wip" tag on it? IF you find reliable sources, then we can continue this discussion. Also, I'm keeping perfectly cool, thank you. Mackan 20:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, you should read that essay. And thank you for reminding me. I'll put something on the talk page saying that i'll come back in a few days to the article. Just H^{editor review} 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, even if I were a dick, I'm right. Stop being obnoxious because you were told your edit was bullshit, the admin you turned to gave me right. Mackan 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions aren't right or wrong there, chief. You might think it's not notable, I think it is, we both have opinions. I sought out a third opinion, which is what a Wikipedian should do in situations such as those. Nobody can give you the right to be incivil, and just to clarify, I was talking about that essay, WP:DICK is a long standing part of Wikipedian studies, and you acted accordingly within the thoughts in that essay. Just H^{editor review} 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shinjuku

Yeah, I agree with you as well, can you tell Necmate that on his talk page please! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Just H 4

Thank you commenting on my editor review! Just H^{editor review} 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)