Hey, thanks for fixing my userpage. I was at school and was not able to sign in and edit my userpage after I blindly edited it this morning. Thanks! Glad to know someone is watching out for me! --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆tell me about it
Hello, StuartLaJoie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Melsaran 10:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your input on Comfort women. However, I would need the same kind of support on Manchukuo and Eugenics in Showa Japan as Azukimonaka is doing the same thing there : "Japan Times is not a relialable source", "You have to prove the correctness of the categories" etc., etc. I simply do not understand his way of thinking. --Flying tiger 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Azukimonaka probably wants to improve Wikipedia by insisting on reliable sources for controversial statements. Because his opinion of what is controversial is different from yours or mine, he can point out ways to improve articles we would not have thought of ourselves. On his User page he explains that he finds it difficult to express himself in English. So I think of the most reasonable explanation I can give to his statements and then explain my own views in the way I would like to be adressed myself. In general, if I feel tired or angry, I stop editing for a while and return when I feel better. It has not yet been officially announced, but the day on which Wikipedia must be finished has been postponed for a month, so we can all take some time off;-) Most of time I spend on Wikipedia, I am not editing, but just looking for sources online and in libraries en thinking over different wordings. So by the time any of my edits is questioned I usually have no lack of arguments or alternatives. Why? Because of a nice Wikipedia feature: behind every page is a 'history'. Once I have provided a contribution, it is out there for anyone to use. No one can suppress it forever. On the other hand, if I make a stupid edit it is there forever too. So I try to be careful: if I make too many stupid edits, it might reflect badly on the views I cherish. I don't know what I could contribute to the Eugenics article, but I have offered an authoritative source on the Manchukuo Talk page. If you see any other way I can improve Wikipedia, just let me know; if there is any urgency, feel free to use 'E-mail this user' on the left. And last, but not least: Thanks for your contributions too!
♥Stuart LaJoie→ talk2me 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it desirable to request the reliable source of information? --Azukimonaka 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. That is exactly what I am saying. In my experience, you will get more respect if you do not 'request' but 'kindly ask' and if you wait for an answer and some discussion before you remove text from an article. In my view there are many statements in Wikipedia that should be improved, no need to hurry. What I like about your contributions is that you make me think about statements I always assumed to be true. Well, if they are, I should be able to find a source saying so. If not, let's find a better statement. So please let me know when I seem to misunderstand your contributions.
♥Stuart LaJoie→ talk2me 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
