I just thought I'd say that even though we seem to have drawn out conflicts over the subject of Debito Arudou, I respect you greatly. You have shown a sense of fairness and quickness that is to be desired in a fellow wikipedian. Even though we argue, I feel honored to argue with someone with such skill. Hopefully, although are viewpoints on particular phrases may differ, you will not hold animosity towards me when the words have finished being written.
--Watchreader05:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks for the kind words. I try not to take these things personally. Discussing the fine points of the article to make it even stronger is what the talk page is all about. Provided that everyone can present civil and cogent arguments for change, I'm flexible with the end product. Happy Holidays.—J Readings06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article on Debito Arudo tonight and think it is superbly balanced—perhaps even a model of how to keep an article NPOV while presenting a full picture of the subject. I'm really looking forward to what you, Exitmoose, and the others do with the Gaijin article. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart12:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to it, too. Thanks. These articles take a long time to research and re-write, depending on what the sources are. I suspect that the "gaijin" article will be facing a lot of problems in the near future. Without third-party publicly verifiable academic sources, much of it will rely on current "usage" in the print media. And like you, without a neutrally cross-referenced etymology of the word, I'm beginning to wonder if we can even justify an article on the subject. -- J Readings23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether you’re online right now... You just edited your comments on the Talk:Gaijin page a few minutes ago, so I guess I’ll have to go back and re-read them. In any case, I sympathize with your sentiments, which is one reason I’ve been standing back and not editing the Gaijin article: it’s a lose–lose situation right now. Although I have my reservations about the NOR policy being too rigidly applied, the “bar-room talk conclusion” nature of the assertions in many articles (have a look at Japanese titles and kimono—just with respect to Japan, it’s not limited to the Gaijin article) can really get out of hand and are almost impossible to remove, especially when one or more editors are involved who seem to be more interested in using Wikipedia as a soapbox than helping to make is a comprehensive source of neutral, balanced information.
The desire to make Wikipedia broad in content clashes with the NOR policy, though, in cases like the Gaijin article where there is a phenomenon worthy of note, but so little academically or scientifically researched work available to draw on for sources. I have several references on Japanese slang, subculture language, insults, and they like; but they don’t even mention the g-word. And as I’m sure you already know, no common Japanese dictionary of the 国語 genré goes much further beyond defining 外人 as 外国人のこと.
One of my favorite peeves with articles on things Japanese are the quaint little translations that are supplied with some Japanese expressions—why can’t people be satisfied that 着物 means clothes, 君（きみ） means you, and 僕(ぼく) means I without having to resort to glosses like “thing worn,” “my lord,” and “your servant”? What are these weird renderings supposed to illustrate? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. These Japanese language articles certainly present an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, most of what passes for research (and there is a lot of it on the internet) is nothing more than barroom banter and personal speculation. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much (if any) reliable third-party academic analysis on the etymologies in any language...at least, for the word gaijin. What to do? Any additions to the article without citations can (and should) be considered original research. Then again, for the few bloggers that publicly expressed opinions, WP policy clearly states that their presentations do not constitute reliable sources, and rightfully so. Who knows how rigorous their research was before making a presentation, especially when politics plays such a heavy role in their postings. At one point I would like to consult the WP administrators at WP:ATT and WP:NOR about the Gaijin article. I think that it merits their attention. You might want to do the same for the Japanese titles and kimono pages. J Readings13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response—and sorry about messing up the formatting above; I hope this fixes it. Your “What to do?” questions is poignant, and it points to one of the doubts I’ve been entertaining: NOR looks like one of the foundation policies of Wikipedia, one pretty much carved in marble—which means that any subject for which secondary and third-party sources can’t be cites or found, has to be removed. But this conflicts with Wikipedia’s goal to be an all-comprehensive information resource for anything that is of notable value, which this case (gaijin) certainly is. So there needs to be some flexibility somewhere, such as tolerance for use of primary sources while secondary are unavailable—perhaps with some sort of disclaimer. Perhaps RomaC can be of help, since he seems to have quite a bit of WP experience (though it looks like he might not have much Japan-specific knowledge).
If we could get the NOR issue straightened out, I’d like to work with someone to rework the Gaijin article into one that is balanced and neutral about the word’s controversial aspects; but without citations out the ears (like, for just about every phrase) it will always be a magnet for “bold” editors with an agenda.
Btw, some of the silly glosses I cited above are in the Japanese language article, which seems to me to be otherwise pretty solid. Sometimes I wonder whether these odd glosses aren’t the work of Japanese contributors. Have a good weekend, Jim_Lockhart16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your research on gaijin—ご苦労様! Also, thanks for archiving the talk page. Btw, ぐゎいじん is pronounced がいじん. The くゎ/ぐゎ kana combinations are no longer used and have been supplanted by か／が since the 1948 kana reforms. They're why for instance 観音 is rendered kwannon is some older English texts. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I didn't know about the 1948 kana reforms, but looking back it makes sense. That said, there are still other academics who read 外人 as either kotobito or udokihito. I'm still unclear about what to make of it. If you have any thoughts, please let me know. Best,J Readings07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
言海 also glosses 外人 and ことびと。I’m sure this koto is that of 異, which essentially means different or distinct, as in 異国. Fwiw, intercultural studies are called 異国文化コミュニケーション、異文化理解 and such. Later, Jim_Lockhart07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back again. 言海 says this about ことひと:
ことひと=「異人」= 其（その）人ならぬ人。他人。
Essentially: somebody else, (an)other person, a third person. It also give two examples, but they’re in classical language.
Fwiw, the gloss 敵視するべき人 for the use of 外人 in Heike looks valid to me, but I don’t think interpreting it to mean “someone who should be considered an enemy” is correct—this interpretation mistakes the meaning of するべき to mean should as in when should is being used to give advice. But するべき is not that strong in meaning—it means something more like “it would be natural/understandable if one did XXX.” I see gaijin and 敵視するべき人 as meaning “people outside of your ingroup, of whom you should therefore be wary because they could be working for the enemy or traitors.”
By the way, a funny thing happened to me at the store recently, just as we were discussing all this stuff on the Gaijin talk page. A little girl—I’d say five or six—gave me the old “Oooo! Gaijin da!” treatment with a little twist: She said “gaijin-san,” and her mother looked embarrassed about it. The first time she noticed me was from a short distance, but the second time was when I got in line at the till while her mother was bagging her groceries. The little girl kept looking over her mom’s shoulder (and, at one point, around a post) and giggling, so when I finished paying I went over to the same table to bag my stuff. When I left, I gave her the バイバイ thing that kids do here, and she lit up and waved back. (Mother gave an embarrassed nick of the head.) I think somebody’d have to be pretty cynical to interpret that as disparagement—although I know a few other ex-pats who would be fuming about how “racist” it was and wanting to know why I hadn’t dressed down, if not the little girl, at least the mother about it. If I had, though, who would have gained? Would that have done anything to counter racism? My bet is that it would have helped entrench it, as well as added to or displaced the curiosity with fear and perhaps a little resentment. This is my feeling about this whole gaijin-as-disparagement business. Have a good one, Jim_Lockhart08:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have much more to report over the next few days, but I have one other interesting tidbit on this topic of 外人 etymology, classical Japanese literature, and potential epithets. Donald M. Richardson, editor of A Literary Translator's Japanese-English Dictionary (Winchester, VA: 1998), weighs in on this subject. He tells us that gaijin simply means "a foreigner; a stranger; an alien" but it is not an epithet, nor is it even remotely pejorative. In Richardson's view, the word that *is* considered to be an epithet in classical Japanese literature to refer to foreigners is 東人(toujin). It can either mean "(1) a Chinese" or "(2) an epithet for foreigners." (pg. 838). I thought that was interesting, and lends more support to the idea that the Kojien definition of Heike's passage (and its WP interpretation) is either incorrect or misleading in its current form. J Readings12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t wait for your full report! Meanwhile, I zipped over to Amazon to check out that dictionary... :( It seems to be out of print! Where did you see it, at a college library? It sounds like a winner (and I don’t mean because of its gloss for gaijin—I’ve never seen a J>E dictionary of literary language! Jim_Lockhart12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Jpatokal and User:Exploding Boy are back on the Gaijin article. I’ve gone around in circles with one or both of them before (don’t recall which) and recall that the exercise was no fun. If you recall, I once referred to working on this article as a lose–lose situation; that is what I was referring to. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's terribly frustrating. It's obvious that it's not about the research (they don't have any); they just want to push a political agenda. Unfortunate, really. J Readings12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, precisely. Wanting to push a political agenda is not bad in itself, it’s just that they’ve chosen the wrong venue. They have a point in that the controversy needs mentioning, and I’m at a bit of a loss about how to do that while complying with Wiki policies on attribution and such because there seems to be so little in scholarly work on the subject—none that I can find, at least; though I must admit that I’m not able to devote the time and energy to it that you’ve put into your research on the word. I think that for scholars, Japanese or otherwise, gaijin as a problem expression is a bit of a non-issue. This is where the NOR policy can be a bit of a hindrance, though: one of the most interesting and useful facets of Wikipedia can be in the information offered that is not mentioned or accepted by the mainstream, regardless of the subject matter (the problems start went such content starts to take over like a kudzu vine!). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart13:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would be satisfied with a few reliably sourced and reputable opinion polls by mainstream print newspapers. Having looked carefully myself, they simply don't exist. The closest thing was a very dubious internet poll that has all different types of methodological problems, and won't pass the vetting process. Arudou's e-mail on gaijin aside, there aren't any journalists or academics that insist that the word is derogatory. To be fair, Tokyo Drift makes the explicit case in the movie (and we're allowed to cite it in usage, I imagine) but I seriously doubt that type of fictional commentary over-rides all the other serious research to the point where it's given undue weight in the WP article. I have other research results to share, including some stuff on NHK, authors' opinions, and academic usage which I'll get to writing-up in a few days when I get the chance. In the meantime, my day-job calls! Best,J Readings23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really begining to wonder if the Nick Baker story is notable at all. Who is involved, his mother, an non notable MEP, a NGO of unknown importance, and Mark Devlin. It's funny how everyone is piling on Devlin, but, how many foreingers in Japan know about this case if it wasn't a cover story on Metropolis twice? I am wondering if we should push for an AfD on notablility grounds and lack of reliable sources. Sourcing is going to be a real problem, in my opinion, if any article from Metropolis is not allowed. I wonder how many other westerners in Asian prisons for drug trafficing have their own wikipeida article. Is a westerner in an asian prision for drug trafficing claiming innocence while his or her supporters decry the human rights of said Asian country notable? Or any of these people What do you think? XinJeisan15:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. On the first point, it's very difficult to achieve consensus for AfD on notability grounds especially when there have been so many newspaper and e-zine articles published on the case. Granted, many of these news stories were fed to the media by the Baker legal tream, but that doesn't discount the article's notability (ultimately, the meda -- for whatever reason -- ran with it).
On your second point, reliability of sources, I have a lot of sympathy. There is a clear selection bias at work in the writing of this article. Personally, I strongly believe that all partisan sources must be identified as such, removed from the descriptive portions of the article, and replaced with reliable, third-party sources (e.g., newspapers). The "Reactions to trial" section can probably keep the partisan materials. J Readings22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had to bring up AfD. Like I said, if you look through the articles, no one has really done an independent review of this case. There has been no indepedent biography done of Nick Baker, and the UK government has failed time and again to become involved in any public way.
Anyways, I will probably keep along on the talk page and contribute where I can, but I believe that you will do right by wikipedia standards. I haven't really followed policy talks or anything until someone put up a sumo article for deletion. For the past two weeks or so I have been following policy as opposed to actually editing. It is interesting to see how this comes together. XinJeisan 15:19, 18 July
2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize to me about AfD. As an editor, you have every right to raise the issue. I just don't agree that this article is a strong candidate. The good news is that majority seems to think that something needs to be done. Four of us seem to agree that the article needs to adopt a more rigorous methodology; two others seem to support the idea in theory at least (with some quibbles about what should be cross-referenced); one seems to favor outright deletion (with your seconding); and one appears just to be noise directed at user:sparkzilla and Metropolis. Anyway, rather than do any more archive work on the article right now, I think I'll take a break until some kind of consensus is reached on the AfD issue. I should get back to my day job! Have fun with studying Wikipedia policy. It's fascinating stuff. Best, J Readings00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the excellent work of transforming the Nick Baker talk pages into a model representation of what Wikipedia can be when all the stars are aligned, including going to visit an actual library to verify data for us!
But, with no Japanese sources, and limited english sources, someone should put it up for AfD. I am going on wikibreak so I'm not,it wouldn't look proper. have fun with it whichever way it goes. XinJeisan10:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a userbox on your userpage, saying "this user assumes good faith." Accusing me of "re-writing history" when I remove some paragraphs that seem quite unnecessary to the criticism section of Arudo Debito seems quite out of spirit with that userbox..? 217.209.193.6521:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea. I just downloaded a new user script called Twinckle and I must have accidentally pressed the speedy deletion button. J Readings20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you satisfied that, after your efforts, A Lawyer Walks Into A Bar is notable? I ask because MRHEDP, also by user:Stinly, was speedily deleted as spam. It was about "Media Rights Holder Electronic Distribution Protocol. MRHEDP is a newly adopted process by which anyone or any entity that owns rights to specific media such as films, music, and video can self-distribute their media output (DVD, CD, etc) through widely available distribution outlets exclusively available online." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MRHEDP. And Stnly is obviously a single-purpose account. -- RHaworth15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I agree with you that the article still needs a lot of work (it reads like an advertisement in places) and that it would have looked much better had an established user submitted the entry, but I do think that it meets the notability requirements. Using Lexis-Nexis, I found several reliable third-party sources that mentioned the film and two articles that wrote just about the film itself. Add to those the fact that it won an award (see IMDB entry), received a little coverage from the mainstream Wall Street Journal, and falls under the acceptable category of "independent film" in the WikiProject Film, just barely puts it over the top in my opinion. Regards, J Readings01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Proposed Canidate For Speedy Deletion, Zoey Beckner
Check out the article antisemitism. I think the lower case version is a function of the urge to lose the hyphen; Safire wrote on this tendency more than once.
Why "antisemitism" but "anti-Americanism," you ask? Good question. Does antiamericanism look stupid because of the juxtaposed vowels? Billbrock02:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Ahhh, I miss William Safire's weekly "On Language" articles. They were about the only thing worth reading in the New York Times Magazine! :-) J Readings06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danclark8 (talk • contribs) 11:43, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Hi Danclark8. Welcome to Wikipedia. I ran a Lexis-Nexis news search on the band, but I wasn't able to find any articles written about them. If you can cite more than that one independent third-party article from the BBC News, I would be happy to withdraw the speedy delete request on the notability grounds. J Readings11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the explanation - there's another general article about the band at NME; have linked to it in the Wiki article & edited slightly. OK to withdraw the request now? :) Danclark812:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks. I'll remove the speedy delete tag, but this doesn't ensure that someone else won't object to the article at a later date. If I could make a suggestion, try putting as many reliably sourced citations into the article so that the notability of the subject is pretty much guaranteed. I'll try to help you out by looking on the internet, too. If I find anything, I'll add the sources. J Readings22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we discuss the above image on Talk:Essjay controversy? I can see it might interest some, but I'm having difficulty seeing its appropriateness and have explained why on that page.
Thanks to the hard-work of not a few dedicated editors, we were finally able to upgrade this article to GA-status. Personally, I have no objection to editors wishing to cut-down on redundant language and poor grammar, hone the introduction, and improve other miscellany. In fact, I welcome and appreciate many/most of your edits today. I start to get very uncomfortable, however, when editors start changing the article too much without first consulting with others on the talk page. One of the things that crosses the line is the Essjay picture. We have been through this issue several times. Indeed, it was at the request of reviewers for FA-status that finally put the Essjay picture on the page for good. I would hate to think that we would have to revisit this issue for the n-th time now that we finally achieved GA-status. Best regards, J Readings18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yaki-gaijin. I'm assuming that question is in reference to the comfort women article, right? :-) Personally, I can understand why you might be a little irritated. You clearly have strong views about this subject based on what you've written on the talk page, and your own user page. You feel your position is justified. The problem is: other contributors acting in good faith might have read other books and materials which offer a different take on history. Consequently, there is a clash. My personal philosophy is to take a break from an article whenever I start to get hot-under-the-collar. Otherwise, I run the risk of exploding in public.
Looking back on my own edits, I once got very upset with another contributing editor who clearly wanted to push a political agenda. I (and a few others) arrived at that conclusion based on (1) the fact that he didn't have any secondary research at all to support his POV-edits (so he wasn't simply documenting and describing the debate, he was engaging in it), (2) he (I think it was a "he") made it very clear on the talk page that the article "should" mostly be about one aspect of the subject that interested him (again, without documenting why that should be the case), and (3) he kept insisting that any reliably sourced edits he disliked or which were "inconvenient" to his position needed to be removed from the article.
Rather than taking a break, I started to argue with him in public (not a good move on my part) and started to assume bad faith on all his future edits anywhere and everywhere. Thankfully, it didn't get out of hand and ended within a couple hours of starting. But I really regret having done any of that. Wikipedia is not a battleground. There is nothing that says that someone cannot revisit an article days, months, or years later with new material that conforms with policy. By that time, an editor can just as easily remove or polish previous edits to make them stronger and more factually accurate.
Believe me, no one is interested in deleting The Comfort Women page. It is not going anywhere. I myself would like to contribute more to it, but unfortunatley I'm busy with other things and also I think I would have constructed the page a little differently by focusing on the controversy that it generates in both the mass media and academic circles. It may not be useful to any one partisan position or lobby, but it might give the reader a better general overview of the subject matter -- which is what an encyclopedia strives to do. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:David Irving. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Calton | Talk00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, the text was specifically archived as I clearly wrote in the edit summary because it was already lengthy. Nothing was deleted and nothing was overwritten. J Readings (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, you can check the revision history to see that the user first archived the material,[1] then over-wrote it.[2]. It was a confusing method, but the end effect is the same as a conventional archiving operation.
The four tildes that weren't working on the Gaijin talk page were full-width (全角) wavy dashes (～～～～), so your IME must’ve been turned on when you input them. You replaced then with regular tildes, which fixed the problem.
I’m having difficulty with some of the new material introduced into the Gaijin article. For example, I consider the section about fingerprinting of non-Japanese upon entry into the country to be irrelevant to the definition or usage of gaijin; it looks again like it’s designed to make the Japanese unusually xenophobic, even though this practice (photographing and fingerprinting aliens upon entry into a country) is done elsewhere, particularly the United States. (Many people don't seem to know it, but Japan’s alien registration scheme—including the registration cards and the fingerprinting that was scrapped in the mid 1980s—was SCAP’s brainchild, not that of the Japanese.) This and some of the other newer content, while I think it does belong somewhere in Wikipedia and should be cross-referenced from the Gaijin article (because readers are likely to look for it here), is not really relevant to this article in helping readers to understand gaijin and related arguments unless the purpose is to lead readers to believe that gaijin is a phenomenon rooted in Japanese xenophobia (defined as contempt for or fear or dislike/hatred of non-Japanese).
Personally, I think the situation on the ground is much more like that described in the Mayumi Itoh quotation you cite on the Gaijin talk page. I realize that some view Japanese attitudes towards foreigners as some sort of reverse-Orientalism and therefore racism, but it's certainly not hatred for the majority, and I think that this is a distinction that should be made. Ah, well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim. I don't know what to tell you. If you feel strongly about it, it's really a good idea to say something on the talk page for the sake of discussion. I can see what you're saying about the irrelevancy of fingerprinting for this particular article, but it is not something I want to take the lead on. As it is, RomaC is trying to make me out to be some kind of control-freak with ownership issues (<sigh>), and as much as I resent the personal attacks and wish he would read the guidelines for writing the lead section and those for a reliable source, I have to accept that's how he feels. I wish there were more editors actively contributing to this article who understand policies and guidelines --- Bendono and a few others immediately come to mind.
Personally, the more I research the word, the more complicated this situation becomes in terms of editing the article. I've been putting off adding any of these citations because I see myself sitting down for hours trying to figure out how to re-word this stuff without original synthesis, and I really don't have the time lately. Plus, we all know that few editors will be happy with the end-product and this fact is probably why no one else has tried to add citations, either! :-) J Readings (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, I moved that part from Ethnic issues in Japan since they are not issues at all or not well described as ethnic issues but rather human rights in foreigners in Japan and issue of nationality. I chose to move them for the present since if I just deleted them, that would invoke edit war. I chose gaijin since it corresponds to foreigners in Japan (ja:日本の外国人). If the description concerning the issue will be added, they will be moved to human rights of foreigners section in Human rights in Japan. Should we separately make an article, Foreigners in Japan?--Jjok (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jjok. FWIW, it does seem strangely out of place in this article considering that it's mostly about the nature of the word, its etymology, and usage in literature and non-fiction. Your suggestion of either making a separate article or putting it in the human rights of foreigners section seems to be a better idea. J Readings (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like Jjok’s idea of where to put the material, and think a link should be provided to it at the end of the Gaijin article. JReadings, I don’t feel strong enough about the issue to do something that would draw a lot of flak at the moment, because like you, I’m too busy in real life to get dragged into defending everything; in this sense, I empathize with you on your aversion right now to reworking everything to reflect all the research you’ve done. That's why I stopped trying to actively contribute to the Gaijin article long ago; apologies to those who think that’s cowardly. I saw the material accusing you of being a control freak and thought them quite unwarranted and unfair; personally, I find such accusations to be little more than attempts to cower others. You have displayed “ownership” in that article in a positive manner, which I believe is probably better described as “stewardship” is as much as you have taken it upon yourself to see that material conforms to guidelines and furthers Wikipedia the project rather than Wikipedia the bully pulpit. If accusers can cite no instance of your deleting material gratuitously, I think they have little to stand on. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to say, you have a ridiculous amount of patience. Good luck with Amazonfire and all the other Japanese revisionists that are going to rip apart every page they touch. I will try not to get in your way. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think I'm being ridiculous. (^_^) I'm trying to understand where he's coming from (See WP:BITE). As it turns out, a lot of what he's saying is simply a misunderstanding of WP policies and guidelines. After politely pointing that out to him, I think he concedes that many of his arguments were inappropriate and is trying to understand better what the rules are. I agree with you that it's wrong to delete completely the referenced material, but getting into an edit war over it doesn't help. The best way forward is to give it a little time and keep a cool head. Also, and I sincerely mean this, you should consult with other experienced editors and administrators on the reliable source noticeboard. Not only will they make an authoritative judgment about Friday Weekly, but they'll likely visit the page to offer peer review, too. No editor in their right mind, especially an editor wanting to last on Wikipedia, will unilaterally pick fights with them during the peer review process. Give it a try. You might be pleasantly surprised. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, Wikipedia is free encyclopedia. Here, we are intended to get the content under free-license. The image qualifies its fair use criteria for Caroline in the City because the role of Lea Thompson as Caroline can not be repeated in the future. So, unless the owner of the images does not release them under free-license, they could not be replacable fair-use. The article about the show depicts the show and follows the guideline and really makes sense to the article with the image, whereas career of Lea Thompson on the article does not follow fair use rationale guideline. The section has its significance without an image. There is really a requirement of having her real life photo on the article. I suppose, the free-image could be made available by contacting a person who is very near to or Lea Thompson, herself. (Quentin X (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Great work on improving this article and finding the supporting sources. You might consider writing to the sisters' publicists/agents to ask for free-use images for the article. Who knows, they might actually provide them without demanding a payment. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. There's still a little that can be added from the English sources. I've just started to read Kyoko Kano's autobiography in Japanese (Millennium Muse). There's a little that can be added from that book, too (not to mention the other Japanese sources). Re the photos, I agree that the article needs them. I'd contact the Kano sisters myself, but I'm still unsure what to ask. Copyright infringement versus fair use on Wikipedia for digital photographs is still a subject I don't fully understand. What specifically do I need from them? The more I watch others delete photos, the more confused I get (see the Lea Thompson issue above.) I recall how Mark Devlin (AKA Sparkzilla), former owner of Metropolis magazine, granted explicit permission to use the magazine's logo on the WP page. An editor quickly deleted that digital image for some reason, but I don't know why. I'd appreciate some guidance on this issue. Best, J Readings (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the photos in other celebrity articles, there doesn't seem to be one common license used. Raul654, a Commons admin, recently set up a repository for celebrity publicity agencies to deposit images of their celebrities for use in Wikipedia. I'll try to locate it and see what it says on this issue and add the link here later. Where do you live in Japan, by the way? I'm in Kanagawa. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, here's the page that has the instructions for submitting bio photos. We're supposed to email that text to the publicist of the celebrity that we're writing about. I don't know if the Kano Sisters have an English contact for their publicists. If not, then someone will have to write them in Japanese and that is beyond my linguistic abilities. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...saying "well said, elsewhere". But you beat me to it! I notice similar tactics have been used elsewhere and his approach, tone etc criticized. It certainly is very wearing, though seductive in a Socratic way! And his motivation, to allow him to introduce something into an article? or just to "win" his point? Who knows? I certainly won't be responding anymore, despite the attacks, and suspect that the best solution is if nobody does! Happy New Year! --Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please see talk page. Let's get a balanced intro that includes a reference to the term being a racial slur and considered derogatory by some. The intro for the word NIGGER is a good base to use for this term. Keep an open mind.
Thanks for your note (I did not write the above, BTW!). I was thinking of asking for some help but was actually a bit encouraged this morning to see that I had not been reverted (totally) and that discussion was taking place (here) and on the talkpage, however frostily. It will be too bad if you retire for 6 months as you seem to have lots of information to contribute and explain, but do what you must do! --Slp1 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny. In the beginning, I can't even remember how I got involved with this article because I knew absolutely nothing about the word. When I first came to the page, I noticed a lot of activity, but little in terms of sources. One thing led to another, and I started to do some research. Like User:Exitmooseet al., I'm actually surprised what I found.
As for the anon SPA, I'm trying to understand him per WP:BITE, but it's really tiring. Rather than attack me personally on the talk page, I wish he would just have a normal, academic conversation and share his findings with the group. I'd certainly respect that a lot more than what he's doing now (stating what he passionately believes and working backwards). I felt that it was time to move on to other things for a little while and let other experienced editors like you work on the article. If I get sucked back in, I'll be accused of "ownership" which is patently ridiculous because all I've been doing up until now is following the policies and guidelines for WP:SOAP, WP:LEAD, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYN, WP:ATT, WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. That's how to write a good article; follow this stuff and everything will be okay. That's why it's there. Unfortunately, some of these users just don't take the time to understand them so you have to be patient. Anyway, I need to get back to work. Have a good flight and call me or User:Bendono or User:JALockhart or one of the admins to the article if he really refuses to comply with these policies and guidelines. These editors also understand how to write an encyclopedia article. Best, J Readings (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well I understand, and it is quite wise, I imagine. But it is good that s/he is talking so I will see how it goes... we seem to have made a bit of progress, I think. I do think sourcing these things is important. A couple of articles I worked on, École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lépine, were controversial too, but the POV editors really backed off once a verifiable version of their opinion (but not at the extreme) was sourced and in available in black and white. That's why I was interested in your input, because I think if we could just nail down a couple of sourced sentences that everybody could live with, the whole thing might be over. I'll see what I can do nonetheless. Happy working on others things!! --Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. For some background, I'd recommend that you start from the beginning. Read all of the archives and see how this strange situation developed over time. A quick synopsis: When I first came to the page mid-way (Archive 4), there was already a lengthy, inappropriate bar-room like argument and edit war regarding the term between three editors (one Japanese and 2 others). Jim Lockhart (who I didn't know then and whom I've still never had the pleasure of meeting) intervened to say the most important thing: "where is any of the content in this article?" Jim's comment reflected the views of other experienced editors (e.g., Yoji Hajime, CES, Cla68, etc.) who assumed that everything was already reliably researched. Provided that in-line citations were added to comply with policy, everything would be alright.
Exitmoose and I started to work on finding those sources, but unfortunately we found absolutely nothing; it appeared to be a lot original research and original synthesis. Where were they getting their materials from? Sadly, they were getting them from chat forums, personal websites, personal anecdotes, unpublished fringe theories, unverified television programs, etc. We removed it all per WP:RS and WP:OR. Consequently, Exitmoose, Jim Lockhart, Bendono and I agreed that the "Controversy" section was a magnet for unsourced POV-pushing on both sides and needed to be removed. Only two editors objected: one of them wrote the section himself and the other stated (irrelevantly) his personal views on how racist the word is, so it should somehow stay in.
Some of these IP addresses are obviously new to WP and aren't familiar with how to write an encyclopedia entry. Others are potential sock puppets. I recommend that you continue to be civil, keep a cool head, and stay focused on the subject matter in relative context. As policy states, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Otherwise, they'll start to add all kinds of contentious edits and the article will become a lengthy, unstable and unreliable mess. My hope is that eventually they'll either understand that and try to work with experienced editors or leave realizing that turning WP into a soapbox isn't such a good idea. Give me a call if you need some feedback. Good luck! J Readings (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement, but the latest edits push things into the going bad to worse category, and I am inclined to take a break myself. It is too bad that all the other informed editors have got fed up, but I can understand why. I may try another approach yet, but will wait a day or two to see if anything or anyone else crops up. Please note that this is not a hint in any way!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've done some excellent research so far. I'm impressed. It never occurred to me, for example, to check Harumi Befu's Hegemony of Homogeneity, and it was sitting on my bookshelf the whole time. Another option is to take a break, or do some more research to solidify the article. As it stands, putting undue weight on a couple of sources in the lead and the rest of the article is clear violation of official policy. My sense is that the other editor is really new to all of this and simply can't understand that Wikipedia is a tertiary source relying on a careful balance of *reliable* secondary sources. There is hardly any "balance" when someone has to rely on two sources to buttress everything in the lead and the rest of the article. Remember, there are dozens of dictionaries, academic works, and other articles that do not support the "racist" lead. In any case, if after a little while it doesn't work out, simply call for a third opinion of all editors using the right channels, and get a definitive judgment after you've done your research. If he doesn't respect that, then bring it to the attention of admins or an arbitration committee. I know 10 experienced editors who will happily support the process. The editor's bad faith and lack of understanding of policies like "undue weight" is tiresome, but give him some time. He might finally understand at some point and decide to work with you. J Readings (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just got back to this after some real work. I've saved the file but I don't think it would do much good to post it at this point. I am glad that so many people dived in last night (or whatever time it is over there), since it makes it easier if it is not a me and against him thing. So much for your 6 month rule, but I was grateful nonetheless. Re the research: thank goodness for Googlebooks. Could you add the ref the newspaper whose style guide mentions not using the word (as mentioned on the talkpages somewhere)? I couldn't figure out the correct reference for that one. Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I was going to stay out of it. Then I noticed that a few unrelated editors also tried to get through to him, and he reverted them as well without taking any discussion to the talk page. <sigh> Yes, I broke my own self-imposed rule. I need to go to the library right now for some real world work today. Let me look into it and get back to you. I might be able to work on it tomorrow. :-) Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, in case you didn't know, there is a feature called patrolled pages. After you tag an article for speedy deletion, you should mark it as patrolled so other editors don't waste their time re-reviewing it. Thanks Shootthedevgru (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 31 January, you added the WP:Biography template to this article and marked it as high priority. Is there something about this actress I missed that would classify her as high priority? She has 20 credits at the IMDB and the most prominent seems to have been in Juno as an ultrasound technician. Criteria for High priority is: Actors and filmmakers who are well-known in the film industry, to film buffs, and others. These people can reasonably be expected to be included in any print encyclopedia. I am going to re-classify her as low importance at this time, unless I am missing something. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what is the problem with the page, could you please tell me?
it is all genuine material, you can see their own website if you dont believe me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shume 007 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Bob Dent, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dent and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would your Japanese run to casting an eyeball over this [5] and seeing whether it is correctly reflected in the article? Machine translation just leaves more questions than answers!... I am not clear what his PhD is in, for example. --Slp1 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Translating it sentence by sentence:
一九五〇年八月、南フランスのノガロに生まれる。
Translation: [Polak] was born in Logano (Southern France), August 1950.
一九七一年、パリ大学東洋学部（現、国立東洋言語文化研究所）卒。
Translation: He graduated from Paris University's Orientalist (East Asian) Department in 1971 (now the National Oriental Language and Culture Research Institute).
同年、日本政府給費留学生として来日。
Translation: The same year, [Polak] came to Japan as a foreign exchange student funded by (with a scholarship from) the Japanese Government.
早稲田大学語学教育研究所卒。
Translation: He graduated from Waseda University's Institute of Language and Education.
一橋大学大学院博士過程法学研究科修了。
Translation: He completed his doctorate (Ph.D) in Law from Hitotsubashi University's (post)graduate course.
一橋大学客員研究員、中央大学文学部・法学部講師、日仏会館研究員。
Translation: He was a Visiting Research Fellow at Hitotsubashi University, a lecturer in Law at Chuo University's Law Department, and a researcher at the Maison Franco-Japonaise.
The Japanese text here does not make any mention of the "History of Diplomacy Section" mentioned in the Wikipedia text. As for the later sentences that cite a different source, I haven't looked at those but the details of his doctorate are not covered in the Japanese text provided, either. Hope that helps, J Readings (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check this statement within the article? "He received the Medal of the Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989." A source is cited,[6] but I think it may be falsified. JehochmanTalk19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and clarify whether Polak is listed as author or translator? I'm sorry to say that I have been checking the bibliography and things are looking bad.--Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the belated reply. I was in the library doing research for a separate project. Re: your question, the two Japanese sources suggest that he was a co-author. I say "suggest" because 2 names are listed. The two Chinese characters (kanji) to be aware of are 著 and 訳. 著 indicates "author" or "writer". 訳 indicates "translation" or "translator". In this case, the text in the 2 sources (ignore the Wikipedia citation) suggest that he was a co-author with a Japanese translation by 荒木亨. Hope that helps, J Readings (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the automatic translation was very poor then![8]
Can you confirm that Japonichūdo: Nihon no shinsō kōzō the same as ジャポニチュード フランスの知性が見た? In other words, we have the same book listed twice?--Slp1 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic translation services can be poor substitutes for actual translators. If he's around, I would highly recommend Jim Lockhart to confirm my translation. Jim is a professional translator, and since he was not involved with this page, it might be a good idea to consult with Jim over at his talk page. See User:JALockhart. One thing to note for the future is that Japanese always place their titles AFTER the name. So, for example, if you read Mr. Sato in English, it was end up being backwards in Japanese "Sato-Mr." That concept applies to all formal and informal titles in Japanese.
In any case, regarding your question, yes, they both appear to be the same with slightly tweaked titles for perhaps different markets or publishers.
de Beaucé, Thierry, Christian Polak, and Tōru Araki (1980). Japonichūdo: Nihon no shinsō kōzō (Île absolue) (in Japanese). University of Michigan. OCLC 68207108.
de Poncet, Didier, and Christian Polak (1980). Japonitude: the deep strucures of Japan, as seen by the French, ジャポニチュード フランスの知性が見た《日本の深層構造》 (in Japanese), Saimaru.
Both have the title Japonichūdo. One is written in romaji and the other in katakana. Both are Japanese. The problem is that the subtitles are slightly different. The first reads (in English): "Japan's in-depth structure" or "The deep structure of Japan." The second adds (in English): "as seen by French intelligence" or it could be "as seen by French intellectuals." (フランスの知性が見た). I'm not sure, to be honest. Best if you consulted with Jim Lockhart, he be an invaluable witness. He's a highly respected translator in Japan and I would highly recommend him. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. J Readings (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it has become a bit moot since PHG has admitted they are the same book! There is other evidence to confirm it, so I will leave poor Jim out of it!! --Slp1 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J. Could you kindly explain why you simply delete my (referenced) contributions without an explanation? [9]. あまりフェアーではないと思うんですが。Cheers PHG (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your solution with "according to one source", and the brackets. This is a nice compromise. Best regards. PHG (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When that intentionally false report was filed, the administrator checked the recent history of the article and saw that I was not guilty of a 3RR violation. That you believe there was a violation is likely due to an honest misunderstanding on your part with regard to what qualifies as a reversion. As I understand it, and as that administrator seems to, a reversion is defined in terms of the specific text, so if I revert change A twice and change B twice, I have not violated 3RR. For this reason, I strongly suspect that if you submit your own accusation, it will likewise be rejected.
I realize that, in an environment where literally anyone can just edit the rules at will and interpretation depends on which administrator the luck of the draw deals you, there will always be cases of genuine disagreement about whether the rules are being followed and some inconsitency in how they are enforced. So, rather than wiki-lawyering about this endlessly, I suggest that pursuing this further is, on many counts, not beneficial. After all, I've made a good-faith effort to follow the rules and have already been declared not guilty by an administrator. In the bigger picture, if you succeed in having me blocked, you will be serving the purposes of people who do not have the best interests of the article at heart. Worse, while the block is short, the damage is permanent. According to the blogs I've read, once someone gets blocked, however unfairly or mistakenly, they are much, much more likely to get blocked again, because they gain a reputation as a trouble-maker. And, incidentally, blocking my IP will affect dozens of people who have nothing to do with this article but who do sometimes edit Wikipedia, so the collateral damage would make such a punishment unjust.
In short, attempting to block me pits you against your interests and against the facts. I suggest that we would both benefit from directing our energies towards improving the article, avoiding this sort of pointless in-fighting. You are not my enemy, so we should not be at war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. If you don't mind taking some friendly, constructive advice (and it *is* offered in good-faith), try limiting yourself to two or three reverts on the same page (anywhere) during a 24-hour period. True, I won't file against you this time. It's largely a waste of my time (unless a user becomes a really disruptive pain in the ass). But that won't stop someone else who is less sympathetic from filing against you. Being rational, I'm sure you don't want to risk being blocked at any point moving forward. And as you said, if someone else files against your reverts, you risk the roll of the dice in finding an unsympathetic administrator who reads the 3RR rules quite differently from your previous ruling. In any case, it's just some friendly good-faith advice in order to limit the page edits and reverts. Please think about it. It's in everyone's long-term best-interest. Best wishes, J Readings (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think I've violated 3RR, which is why I cannot in good faith admit to having done so and then promise not to repeat that offense. For me, intellectual honesty wins over expediency. As it stands, I'm confident that, if one of less sympathetic editors wants to file, I'm safe. However, safety is relative, and your constructive advice has some value. Edit-warring, even within the rules, is not the way to make progress on an article. For now, I will generally try to stay within 2RR, both as a show of good faith and to deny certain people a tool to use against me. I can only ask that you, and any other more sympathetic editors, jump in and help keep the article from being damaged by poorly thought out (or perhaps even poorly motivated) changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ethan and DAG have circled the wagons with a full-blown edit war, complete with each one dittoing the other. From what I've read, this is what usually happens when people who take control of an article are "attacked" by newcomers who dare change the content to match what the rules require. Expect various false 3RR charges until one sticks due to administrator error; that's what's supposed to come next. I was hoping that the blogs by jaded ex-editors would be wrong, but... - Bert 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)
I noticed that your recent change to the lead, despite being quite reasonable, was immediately reverted by a Randian. I expect all changes that are considered "anti-Rand" to suffer the same fate. In the meantime, they've succeeded so far in imposing a one-sided "protection" on the article to silence all anons, and started a baseless RFC against the night owl anon, which is the first step towards getting him permanently banned. This fits in with what one blogger said about anons being treated as second-class citizens on Wikipedia. Then again, that same blogger said that creating an account makes you a target, which also seems to be the case. Looks like there's no justice to be had here. - Bert 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)
Hi J, Did you see my list of the publishers for a few of the books I cited on Ayn Rand? I didn't want those posts to become lost in the shuffle. If you'd like I can post them here too. Thanks. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for thinking of me. I will give it a go soon. And here's a useful trick I have just discovered. Do you know about the 'gadgets' available in the "my preferences" tag? I see that Friendly is there too, but I really love the reftools one, which really helps adding citations. The Navigationpopups are cool too! --Slp1 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was looking for a script that does inline citations for me. It's such a hassle having to copy and paste the appropriate citation template from WP:CIT all the time. I didn't know about the "gadgets" section of "my preferences". I'll have a look at that. Where can I find out more about reftools? I'm interested in that one. J Readings (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just click it on the gadgets page and do some fancy business to clear your cache and voilà, a little blue box appears at the end of the blue boxes in the edit window. It doesn't do all the templates but it has been moooost useful to me! I agree, the copy and pasting gets terribly tedious! --Slp1 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Diberry tool is also very useful [10], though more focussed on medical topics. But it does help with books and websites a bit.--Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks. I didn't know about "gadgets" and I just added some new ones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't actually add the citation templates, right? They just add a reference tag? I might be missing which blue box you're talking about on the "edit this page" bar. J Readings (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should have a new blue button with {{CITE}} on the right hand end of the blue bar of buttons above the edit window. (If not, maybe you did what I did: I keep forgetting to click the save button at the bottom of the gadgets page before purging the cache) The reftool one opens a little popup with boxes where you add the title, ISBN etc and it then makes a citation template which gets added to the text when you click save (or something similar). The Diberri one finds all the info (title, author etc) for you automatically once you insert the ISBN or url but you then have to copy and paste the citation reference into the text yourself. Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it to work now! Apparently (this is interesting), I had to unclick some of the functions I added with "gadget" in order for the cite function to work. I have no idea why that's the case. Anyway, thanks for the tip. I'll be using these tools from now on. Enjoy Friendly! J Readings (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of your excellent mainspace work, your wonderful saving of this article from deletion for one, I am very glad to present you with this Editor's Barnstar. Keep up the good work and happy editing! :) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note J Readings. You are absolutely correct about the order that things are to be presented on a film page. Actually, I thought that I was returning them to that order, yet, somehow I totally messed this page up. I'm not quite sure what I was thinking but I obviously didn't use the preview button. I can only offer many apologies and please feel free to continue on with your work bring the page up to MoS standards. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated reply. Thanks for the note and no worries! I'm just glad that we're both on the same page. I'd like to work with you on that article at some point. Take care, J Readings (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Consistency within articles - The same format (Month day, Year) is used in the infobox, the opening, the main text, footnotes and references.
2) Strong national ties to a topic - Syesha Mercado is an American citizen.
3) Retaining the existing format - Since there is no reason to change the date format based on strong national ties, the format from the start of the article should be maintained.
All three of the guidelines point to using the American format of dates (Month day, Year.) I am confused by your edit summary "Why can't we stick with the international format as outlined on the same MOS page? At least, let's be consistent on the page. We're not, right now." for this edit [11]. The date you changed is the only one that is not consistent on the Sysesha Mercado article. Aspects (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I answered on the article's talk page with a full explanation of what happened. Bottom-line: it was a small technical issue with my browser (Mozilla Firefox) causing me to see the dates in international format everywhere, despite having the American format links. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for the very kind words on the RFA and for the congratulations too! The whole thing turned out much better than I anticipated, but nerve-wracking nonetheless. And now I have to figure out how not to make mistakes with these extra tabs I have to deal with! I hope I don't make too many mistakes! --Slp1 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey J,
I've had two people suggest that I take a look at you as a potential admin candidate. Before I invest the time to do so, I wanted to know if you were interested in becoming an admin first? At first glance, it looks like you might be a solid candidate, but I would have to dig into your edits deeper before I could give you a better assessment of your chances.Balloonman (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Balloonman. Thanks very much for the kind offer. I'm flattered that anyone would consider me for the role. After giving it some thought, however, I'm afraid that I will have to pass. Despite being here for 18 months with 4,000 edits, I feel that I don't have enough to justify it: no FA-rated articles, only one or two GA-rated articles (with admittedly a few others in the pipeline), and no articles created. I understand that’s probably not a real reason to decline the possibility, but maybe I would feel more comfortable taking on the responsibility after contributing much more to the project. (My "day-job" prevents me from finishing off the much-needed upgrades to a few of the articles that caught my attention.) Would it be alright with you if we revisited this subject towards the end of the year? J Readings (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, if you ever change your mind let me know. Just so you know, FA/GA articles are no longer prerequisites for Adminship. (There are no official requirements, but it used to be that you had to have an FA to consider running.) Right now the focus is on people who are civil, trusted by the community, and have demonstrated participation in some of the behind the scenes areas (EG participation in the wikispace.)Balloonman (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you'd be great JR, and hope you'll think about taking the plunge sooner than the end of the year. As Balloonman says, if you look at passing RFAs you'll see that FAs and GAs aren't required, just some sign that people have actually contributed some content, which you sure have. Anyway, take your time! --Slp1 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more point as well, being able to read and write in another language as you do is also a plus for an admin candidate. Cla68 (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your edit summary and your failure to engage with me on the talk page. Since you have now reverted two people on the page, I would advise you to examine your own actions. You talk of rfc and the like, as if that is the only way to achieve anything on Wikipedia, which is patently not true. If the page is categorised as an essay, it is an essay. Calling it anything else is disingenuous. The way to collaborate is to work out the best way forward, not insist on your own version as the only way. I don't do edit wars. I put a lot of time and effort into WP:ATT, but for now I'm going to walk away. I will compromise on anything, but I will not be held hostage to anyone. Cheers, HidingT11:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the note. I just noticed your comment on the WP:ATT talk page. All I can say is that you might be right. Maybe it should be categorized as an essay. Then again, maybe it should be categorized as am information page, or a policy, or a guideline, or a simple summary of the latter two. For quite a while, it's remained only as a summary of two core policies: WP:NOR and WP:V. In cases involving potential Wikipedia rules of governance, identifying this article (rightly or wrongly) is something that the Community ultimately decides, not just one, two, or even five people on a talk page. I can tell from your tone that you're quite upset. I'm sorry about that and even a little surprised, actually. But, if you really want compromise, discussion, and collaboration I really don't see why you would object to a formal RFC involving many of your colleagues. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect language issues as well as lack of understanding of policies etc are the root cause. S/he has made or edited lots of articles about Russian sports-types, all of which probably meet the notability requirements so we gotta work with what we got! I've cleaned up a few, and will keep an eye on things and try to engage the editor if things continue. --Slp1 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, J Readings. I've noticed your interest in articles relating to Objectivism and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J, I meant no offense by linking to the Irr-comm page for the explanation of escalating commitment. I never saw that coming, but I see where you could infer the insult. I'm really sorry. I have never liked the one linked under the other since escalating commitment is probably more broadly used. I've remedied that at the article and if that doesn't work, then the topics should be split. I sure hope that you wil forgive me, but consider what I rally meant. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. Thanks for the note and kind words on the WP:ATT page. I read your explanation, re-read the escalation of commitment page, and gave it a little thought. I can see what you're saying now. Apology accepted. I'm happy to forget about the whole thing. J Readings (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you reverted my edit, stating that the references state the opposite. Actually, they don't. I checked them, and they state quite clearly that Encyclopaedia Dramatica does not have as its focus criticism of Wikipedia. Indeed, it is all through the site that the main aim is blogging sites like Blogger, Live Journal and MySpace, that it expanded to include 4chan, various furry things and that it only mentions Wikipedia in passing. It isn't actually limited at all. They can - and do - talk about anything and everything. They have articles about murders and real life serial killers and real court cases in there too. I put in a quote from the web site, from the reference given, which, as you will see (if you check the links) states that they DO NOT have Wikipedia as their main reason for existence. Of note is that ED is a spin off of LJ Drama, which was initially a Live Journal Community which made fun of people's lives (through their journals). Perhaps we think that it is about Wikipedia just because the few pages it has about Wikipedia have caused so much controversy here that they ended up on the spam blacklist (and rightly so - they have goatse stuff there and links with GNAA) but the reality is that Wikipedia is a tiny part of what they talk about there. Also note that its correct name, according to itself (millions of times over) is Encyclopædia Dramatica. I have proposed that the article be moved to that title. Dyinghappy (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're using independent third-party party reliable sources for footnotes 2 and 3 (don't know how footnote #3 got into the text). They both refer to Wikipedia only. I'll check them again, but the sources are quite explicit. They make no mention of Blogger, Live Journal and MySpace. In fact, in footnote 2, the text reads: "Personalities can become so pronounced in these debates that some even achieve fame of a sort on snarky Wikipedia anti-fansites like Encyclopedia Dramatica". What do you propose that we do about the sourcing conflict now? J Readings (talk)
Footnote 3 is from their web site itself which is here: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About. I have quoted it from there, as I would suggest that they are an authority of what is on their own site. From the other site, it does not make any mention of what their main aim is (whilst it does say what you are quoting, that does NOT say what ED's main aim is...) If you check ED's article on LJ Drama, or LJ Drama itself, you would know how they started, and hence it seems rather peculiar to suggest that they are there purely to criticise Wikipedia. Dyinghappy (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "other site" what do you mean? Footnote 2? I just quoted above what it explicitly states: "Personalities can become so pronounced in these debates that some even achieve fame of a sort on snarky Wikipedia anti-fansites like Encyclopedia Dramatica". It clearly links ED to Wikipedia in that sentence, which to be fair, was used heavily in the AfD as evidence of notability. It would be ironic if we disregard that source now for the more unreliable open source which keeps being edited by anyone on ED. J Readings (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 2 says exactly what you said (I was writing but you were writing at the same time); however it DOES NOT say that that is its main aim. Indeed, ED is very much anti-Wikipedia. It can quite correctly be described as a "Wikipedia anti-fansite". That quote could be included in the article somewhere. However, it should NOT be in the first words. Footnote 2 DOES NOT say anything to suggest that its MAIN or SOLE aim is to criticise (or parody) Wikipedia. ED is anti-Wikipedia, anti-LiveJournal, anti-Blogger, anti-MySpace, anti-4chan, anti-child pornography, anti-anyone who they think is a paedophile, anti-gays, anti-jews, anti-blacks, anti-just about anything you can think of. I would describe ED as a hate site, actually. But I suppose it depends on your definition of a hate site. They prefer to think of themselves as being like rotten.com (which I would also describe as a hate site, incidentally), which they think is "laughs with no boundaries". ED has no limitations whatsoever for their content - other than that it must be funny (by their definition of humour). They have articles about real murders, real serial killers, real mysteries, and a lot of stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, blogging or anything else. They have articles on practically anything. I gather from what you are saying that you have never actually looked at the site. Whilst they do have the occasional shock image come up, and some of what they say is awful, the vast majority of it you can view fairly peacefully. Go have a look at it. Dyinghappy (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. GLS is (you can probably glean this from the website) a yearly conference of academics, educators and members of the game industry designed to highlight interdisciplinary research. Some of the talks scheduled there conform to published or submitted papers. Some of the talks (at the behest of the author) are hosted in PDF form on the GLS website. GLS does not (AFAIK) produce a printed conference report of talks presented for two reasons (I think): one, the main venue for presentation of scholarly work is journal publication, not conference reports (unlike, say, computer science). Two, since the conference is not strictly academic (and the formats for talks vary wildly), some talks are unaccompanied by published materials.
In this case, Dibbell led a panel on "Incivility in Virtual Worlds" and presented the talk I cited. As I noted in the AfD, part of the material in the talk was the same as the recent wired article, but the intent (given the audience) was to present "griefers" as more than jerks or sociopaths. To that end, he described the "evolution" of griefing, the creation of 4Chan, ED, and Project Chanology.
....Hmm, rereading that comment you made leaves me to believe the above two paragraphs may have been "speaking down to you". Sorry.
Ok. The comment was from Julian's talk, not the conference discussant (nor from questions raised at the end). the talk was accompanied with a powerpoint presentation but I don't suspect that is available online. Dibbell is a cool guy, he may email a copy if asked. As for the selectivity of the conference, I'm willing to stand by it as a good source. It is one of the two big conferences about gaming in academia and the hosting university does a pretty good job of picking discussion topics and presenters.
TL;DR: The link included in the citation does not include the text. The published version of his talk is not likely to be online. However, you may see some blog coverage of the conference for some hint that I'm not pulling your leg:
Thanks for the clarification. I'm 100 percent sure that you're acting in good-faith, so please don't misinterpret both my initial question and the response. The problem is that I've never come across a reference that cites discussants or unpublished presentations at a conference. I'm not sure it's going to fly with the folks at either WP:V or WP:RS, but I'll ask for their thoughts. If we can't independently verify the text per WP:V, we have our first problem. Add to that, the second issue of whether or not an unpublished powerpoint presentation at a conference serves as a reliable source for Wikipedia and we have two question marks. I'll take your word for it that you overheard it at the conference, but the issue is what kind of precedent that would set for issues of WP:V. I'll ask both noticeboards for what the consensus is on these issues and get back to you. Regards, J Readings (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I had some of the same thoughts when posting it. Part of the posting could be an appeal to special knowledge: I was there for the discussion, so I added the cite because I knew the content of the talk (regardless of the fact that the abstract didn't mention ED). I can immediately see the WP:V problem. I'm not sure how to fix it. What I'm less convinced of is the WP:RS problem. I would say that the selectivity of the conference and the status of the source (by that I mean Dibbell) should speak to that qualm. I would not feel uncomfortable citing a similar, verifiable presentation from that conference. Again, for the RS side of things we have to address the level of editorial control and the significance of the venue. Both, in my eyes are sufficient for consideration as a reliable source for wikipeida. The verifiablity is a real issue.
Ah, scratch that. Here is a video, scroll to games and incivility. It's in microsoft #$@#$@#$ing silverlight, but it is a video nonetheless. :)
I inadvertantly removed your response to my statement that it was not my duty to do your research for you. (Hamfistedness with a bad air port connection.) I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please restore it. It shouldn't be that difficult. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, strike that. It sounded a little harsher than I would have liked. Now that I've had a chance to re-read your message later in the day, I think I understand what you're saying. You're at an airport, had a bad connection with your laptop, you got cut off, and that's why you didn't fix it. Is that what happened? If so, I respect and understand that. It happens to everybody. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the effort. Whenever you get a chance to restore it today, I would appreciate it. Best wishes, J Readings (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put some more refs in and gave some names so at least it will be easy to see where I use one more than once. I intend to format them all eventually, but I like to work on the content first. So please don't get annoyed at my sloppiness. Your work is appreciated! --C S (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. In fact, I enjoy adding these templates -- I find it relaxing. Hopefully, you won't mind if I add some more. I think this article is a good idea, by the way, thanks for creating it, and I happen to have some data from reliable sources that track the number of suicides in Japan over time. I'm thinking of adding a chart at some point. J Readings (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relaxing?? I find it frustrating actually, which is why I leave them until the end....I think there's a mutually beneficial division of labor here then :-). The chart sounds like a great idea. --C S (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dance_of_the_Dead_DVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dance_of_the_Dead_DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Melesse. That particular upload was a mistake on my part. I'm glad you approached me because I was wondering who to contact about its deletion from Wikipedia's files. Regards, J Readings (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As you've recently offered your opinion as part of the RFC on the Paul Gustafson article, could you let me know your feedback on the work I've done to correct the tone and achieve some consensus? My work in progress is linked from the talk page and I would appreciate all comments.
Thanks, OBM | blah blah blah14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this may not end up as planned, but when I first became involved in this discussion (I was directed here by someone asking for input in the Wikipedia IRC channel and obviously have no background with this subject or the debate prior to this), I had several first reactions. Yes, Debito Arudou was out of line to associate you with JapanReview or to demand indentification.
However, my other reaction was that I felt that your accusation of Debito Arudou was a bit over the line and a bit premature. It's something that I wouldn't necessarily have given a civility warning for, but at the very least a heads up to assume good faith. Yes, he had acted a bit like this, but I would have at least waited for it to escalate more. It was a big assumption, and I hate to say this, but I think it's actually a bit like what Debito Arudou is assuming about us now.
I know it may be humbling, but I think an admittance that you overstepped the guidelines of Wikipedia by accusing an editor of attempting to manipulate things on admittingly a conflict of interest issue. He thinks we're editors who are ignoring rules, admitting that you broke one and that it should have no bearing on the rest of the discussion might in some way help. But then again, it might not. I really don't want this to eventually lead to a banning of Debito Arudou if things continue to go this way (and will lead to more fuel for his fire elsewhere), so anything to try and get him to discuss things rationally might be for the best.
It is simply a proposal. I do not expect in any way for you to do it, or not do it, I'm not going to make the decision for you. But it's just being put out there. The359 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Well, no: I have no ego in this. I apologized to him once already.[13] I mentioned it again just now because I realize that whether it's true or not, it's something I shouldn't have said in the first place, and it's something that I never say on Wikipedia. Anyone who reads my 4000+ edits will know that. It's also true that conflict is almost unavoidable in editing situations on Wikipedia (I've experienced a couple of issues, we all have -- but never like this, though), and I certainly don't want him to get banned, but I'm at a loss as to how to deal with this situation. By ignoring him, my name gets mentioned as the leader against him (total nonsense) for quite some time now. By engaging in dialogue with him, the same thing happens. Will apologizing again make a difference to him? I'd like to believe it would create a more conducive rational atmosphere to editing, but several people have tried this approach (including yourself). It doesn't seem to work. Despite the attempts to show him what needs to be read and thought about, he doesn't seem to understand (and acknowledge) what's being said to him.J Readings (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your stance and in part agree that it likely will not make a difference. At most I wanted to at least make it publically known that there is acknowledgement of a problem that occured on our end of the arguement, but that it had been discussed and no major harm has been done. Nor has there been anything to warrent the behaviour which Debito Arudou has shown. I think a more relevant problem is the appearance of several "single purpose accounts" which are likely to be coming from his blog posts about this matter, and might make this mess even worse. The359 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...yes, the SPAs. *Sigh* I helped re-write that essay from scratch. Well, I have some experience with SPAs, especially with such articles as G. Edward Griffin, gaijin, and the Essjay Controversy. They come and go. Eventually, they tire themselves out because they're not really interested in the subject matter that much, they have no commitment to the project, they're not familiar with WP policies, or they don't have many sources to discuss (if any), so their attention spans wane pretty quickly. I admire a few established users who managed to attract (and keep) some high quality editors who started out on the wrong foot here. I wish I had their talent. Unfortunately, I'm still working on that skill. As for this particular article, it's a mess because no one wants to sit down and re-do everything with the proper Harvard citation templates, citing only the newspapers and academic sources, etc. Not because they hate Arudou (far from it), but because it's an enormous amount of work with no guarantee that Arudou and his readers won't demand that we just cite his website for everything and continually criticize Wikipedia. Then there are the people on the opposite side of the spectrum that just want to screw the poor guy. I'm neither. I wanted to create a really professional academic encylcopedia entry. I'm learning just like everyone else what the perfect balance is based on the current thinking within policies and guidelines (the "Criticism" section, for example, was perfectly acceptable addition a year ago among most Wikipedians, but now that's changed). But in order to get there, we have to get past all the noise and rhetoric first. I'm not too optimistic on that front. If and when things calm down, I might actually go back to the article and seriously re-do the templates without changing the text too much (if at all). We'll see, but I'm trying to stay away from article as much as possible. I'll stop here. I fear I'm beginning to ramble. Sorry, J Readings (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, J Readings! I understand your rationale. It's just that I kinda like the idea of an RFC just to prove that everyone in Wikipedia had the chance to look at the article and comment. What I'll do is if I decide to start the RFC, I'll fill out all of the "paperwork" and let the process handle itself. Anyway, thank you for your advice :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the RFC will be likely the last effort to check Japanreview.net - if, after the RFC, there is a consensus to use Japanreview.net, that will be that. RFM is only for when there is a lack of consensus. Anyway, thank you for your input in this discussion :) - I think in the end the Debito Arudou article will be better because of the scrutiny by various Wikipedia editors. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR report is already filed, and a block could calm him down a bit. As for the discussion, I'm rather reluctant to get involved in it as s/he accused me of being inherently biased, because I'm Korean. Besides, he deleted the Korean reliable source as falsely labeling it as unreliable. I already told him several time, his belief on the source is false, so well, I don't think I can't persuade him. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the note. The problem appears to be that he doesn't understand the difference between "verifiability," "truth," and "original research" as we use them in this discussion. I'm partially to blame here because he took the discussion to the BLP noticeboard and we got sidetracked on the BLP issue, rather than making sure that we're all on the same page regarding what the WP:V policy means. I assume good faith, and chalk this up to a simple case of miscommunication. I could be wrong, of course, and he could be doing this on purpose. But it's clear that he doesn't understand what these terms mean within Wikipedia when he labels his edit summaries. J Readings (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Thanks for the much-needed laugh over my morning cup of coffee
Sorry for the lateness (I've only just now discovered this metaconversation), but do feel free to come over to my talk page and participate in these learned (on 'Ppai's side) exchanges. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I notice you removed the links to Encyclopedia Dramatica's Myspace, Bebo, and Facebook pages. You cited "rmv per consensus on talk page" here [14]
1. I searched the talk pages and so far I didn't find anything related to "Myspace," "Bebo," or "Facebook" - I don't think it is appropriate to apply general principles to this - in order for "rmv per consensus on talk page" to be true it has to be specifically an agreement to not link the Facebook, Myspace, etc. sites
2. As per WP:EL it is okay to link to social networking sites as long as they belong to the subject. The page says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid
If I find any discussion specifically about these links on the talk page, I will add another reply here and continue the discussion. If not I will restore the external links. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I found Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_13#ED_Facebook.2C_myspace.2C_Bebo_links - The thing about the paragraph is that it doesn't say "Except for a link to the official page" it says "Except for a link to an official page," so I don't quite understand how this paragraph is meant to be limited to one link. - However I wasn't aware of the Stephanie Adams discussion. I'll look at that and see what to conclude from that. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed four major situations in which more than one "official" external link might be appropriate. These are the kinds of exceptions that the guideline is intended to allow. No guideline on Wikipedia is intended to allow stupidity (such as linking to www.localband.com and also myspace.com/localband when the content of the two sites are identical). Rather than continuing to bicker with User:2005 over civility, please read Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Once_again and explain your opposition (in that subsection, please) to ever allowing more than one "official" website for any person or entity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[15]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [16]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I'm inclined to say that Randite should probably be avoided, as the religious/cult connotations of the "ite" ending are a bit stronger, but in a world with Marxists, Hegelians, Aristotelians, Platonists and so forth, I see no problem with Randian or Randist. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SteveWolfer (talk·contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk·contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
Snowded (talk·contribs) and Idag (talk·contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
Brushcherry (talk·contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
I don't think it warrants any addition to Ayn Rand's talkpage, since it is a sitewide ban rather than just the article itself. (that is listed on WP:BANNED) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to put together the details of the above editor's record. By the way, it didn't take much effort to confirm that the IP address is located in San Marcos, and Valliant lives in that area. Of course, the IP could still not be Valliant, but it's someone very interested in Valliant at least.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Yes, preparing a statement is time-consuming; that's why mine came late. Perhaps you'll manage a short one........ - Hordaland (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When not entirely frustrated by him, I've felt sorry for him/her, too. It's hard to believe that s/he's been putting on a good act all these years, but almost equally hard to believe that s/he really doesn't understand the guidelines s/he's constantly spouting. Command of the language isn't the problem, at any rate. - Hordaland (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello J Readings, I have added your username to the linked above ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder]] as you have had experience with dealing with scuro when trying to mediate with him a year or so ago so your comments I think would be useful to give a historical perspective of the long running nature of this problem. If you would like to submit evidence and make a statement please feel free to do so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore her. It's just a lot of noise. KD Tries Again should never have attempted to re-open this issue. If no one bothers responding and doesn't take it seriously, it's over as far as I'm concerned. J Readings (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valliant Reconsidered: Leonard Peikoff writes to Jimmy Wales
Thought you might be interested in a just-appeared note from an Objectivist online discussion list. If the poster's tale is credible, the Ayn Rand Institute's Leonard Peikoff has complained to Wikipedia's head about the James Valliant book edits, naming Barbara Branden as "one of the instigators of your new policy." Wsscherk (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should underline that this purported email could be a spoof -- we await confirmation/disavowal from the originator. Wsscherk (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mail is irrelevant. Sometimes outside parties attempt to influence Wikipedia content by unilaterally approaching Jimbo Wales. Unless there are BLP concerns (see WP:BLP) and/or an obvious breakdown of Wikipedia policies by majority vote, Jimbo does not (and will not) get involved with Community consensus. Regarding the Peikoff e-mail, assuming it is legitimate, Jimbo has indirectly commented on the matter.[17] As best as I can read, he will not be intervening. Consequently, the consensus decision -- until such time as Wikipedia criteria for reliability and notability are met -- stands. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Feeling a bit stoopid, I have no idea how to find out how many words there are in a text (without counting them). Will you please point me in the right direction? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The quickest way to count text is by cutting your targeted area and pasting it into a Microsoft Word document. Then, click "Tools" on the toolbar in the upper quadrant followed by "Word Count". MS Word calculates the text within less than a second. It's quite useful. J Readings (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I enjoy editing movie articles and I've been meaning to come back to this article for a long time. There's actually quite a lot of material from plenty of reliable sources that we can use here. I look forward to working with you. J Readings (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Syesha Mercado. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syesha Mercado. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello J Readings! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Orphaned non-free image File:Dance of the Dead DVD Cover.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Dance of the Dead DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.04:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
.jpg)
){kind=link}
