Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:17, 29 September 2007

"is there a reason for signing a petition regarding chon prostitutes?" Is there a reason you had to use a highly offensive slur in a reply to a 6-month old message on another user's discussion page? I don't even agree with most of that user's views, but that one-line reply you left, on a 6-month old message no less, containing a racist slur just seemed like the height of dickishness. Ledtim 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with me, personally, please contact me directly. I work extremely hard to help a lot of people, perhaps more than they deserve, and I won't have that trivialized by someone anonymous with some grudge I don't know about. Smoove K 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More than they deserve? perhaps it is comments like that, that show why you are an arrogant prick, along with the comments where you make it clear that:

1. You consider yourself to be the only intelligent Gaijin in Japan. 2. You have no respect for any ALT working for Heart. 3. You have some weird sense of importance due to your position, when infact you are a slightly upgraded ALT, the same as every other Gaijin who has held your position before you (who all left because they worked out that doing twice the hours of an ALT for a wage that they could easily beat if they went to a decent Eikaiwa, or found an ALT position that was direct hire from the BOE, made them suckers)

perhaps if you showed a little more respect for people who are doing a lame job, for one of the worst paying ALT companies in Japan, then people would show you a little more respect.

oh and.....I dont think there are any lies on my edits, infact, all I did was quote you. So there seems to be no need to allow your UNDO to remain. Sennen goroshi 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not add unreferenced controversial information to Misplaced Pages articles on living persons. Thank you. Tim Vickers 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the BLP policy. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source Tim Vickers 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many problems, any one of which would cause us to remove your edits:

1. Neither the school nor the man are notable, so no article on them should exist.
2. The source is not reliable, so cannot be used.
3. The author of the source and the editors concerned on Misplaced Pages have no verifiable identities, so their claims cannot be attributed.

Tim Vickers 15:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

that makes sense. thanks.Sennen goroshi 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Tim Vickers 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers already gave you effectively the advice I was going to, so looks like you're alright there. Since you're new here, you also might want to consider signing up at WP:ADOPT, you'll get a more experienced editor to help you learn the place. Welcome and happy editing! Seraphimblade 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop!

There are millions of criminal acts/murders/rapes etc. from every possible ethnic group but they are not mentioned on general articles concerning those groups. Your edits are like adding KKK to an article on American people, or Bin Laden to an article on Arab people.Heja Helweda 20:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that 1000 plus people, incouraging a public stoning of a girl, who dated a muslim, is pretty interesting and a major incident worthy of wikipedia entry.

removal of British English

Your recent edit of The War of the Worlds (radio) is generating some controversy. Please see Talk:The War of the Worlds (radio) if you would like to discuss the issue.

You have also misquoted Misplaced Pages's policy on the issue of English dialects. Misplaced Pages's policy, as stated at WP:ENGVAR, states the following:

• "Each article consistently uses the same variety of English throughout; for example, center and centre are not used in the same article."
• "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation."
• "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic."

Your statement on Moncrief's Talk page:

1. Do not edit a page simply to "correct" the spelling in either direction.

comes from Misplaced Pages:Tutorial (Keep in mind), where it is immediately followed by the following:

2. If the subject is related to the U.S., then U.S. English is preferred:

And this part of the tutorial ends with the following:

For a more detailed version of the policy, see the Manual of Style.

which links to WP:ENGVAR.

Please feel free to join the discussion over at Talk:The War of the Worlds (radio). I hope that we can come to a consensus about all of this. superluser_tc 2007 August 26, 20:39 (UTC)

however I dont think Moncrief should be changing mere spellings from British English to American English (for example rumour to rumor) even if the page is a US related page.

What you think or don't think isn't particularly relevant when there is already a Misplaced Pages guideline governing this issue.

Moncrief 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

jap

It should have a usage section, but the etymology is obvious- it's short for "Japanese". The nigger article starts by defining the word as a "pejorative term used to refer to dark-skinned people, mostly those of African ancestry", then goes on to say the connotations have been negative for centuries. That is different with "jap", which is, as you say, primarily an ethnic slur today, but has not always been used as one. In World War II it was still largely an abreviation used in English-speaking newspapers, and before that, it wasn't disparaging at all. I also think "jap" is not considered nearly as offensive as "nigger", but more on the lines of spic or honky. The page could use some expanding, and the nigger article is probably the most apt model to follow.--Cúchullain /c 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some additional sources, but I don't personally have any to provide. I don't know if there's a way to rank ethnic slurs by level of offensiveness, but "nigger" is widely considered one of the most offensive words in the English language, worse than other ethnic slurs and even curse words (in most contexts). But as the king of English ethnic slurs, its article is the best model to follow to expand on other articles on slurs.--Cúchullain /c 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of semantics - I'm going by the dictionary definition of race, which says that it's a social construct based on a number of characteristics and background. Ethnicity, by contrast, is a group of people who identify with each other culturally, etc. Race is much broader and more abstract, while ethnicity is narrower and much easier to define. The Japanese are not a "race" (they would be grouped with other East Asian peoples by those who orginally defined the racial categories), but they are an ethnic group. Hence, "ethnic slur" is the correct way to describe "jap". I'm not the person to ask if there are differences between the Japanese and Koreans, I don't think there'd be much genetic difference, but they do have different languages and customs, and the "Chinese" are neither a race nor a single ethnic group, but rather a nation made out of many different ethnic groups, much like other large countries like the US.--Cúchullain /c 07:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yazidi

It seems that you did not exactly follow what I meant. I did not say 9/11 is not mentioned on country's pages, I said nobody puts this stuff on Islam's page. You are inserting a piece of news about criminals and murders that can happen among all ethnic groups. But if we highlight it for a particular group of people in an encyclopedia article, then we risk misleading the readers into assuming a wrong generalization that all Yazidis are like that, which is not the case. Again think about it clearly. If 9/11 was committed by a guy from a certain religious background, is it appropraite to put that piece of news on the pages of Arabs and Islam? Whenever that happens then I would have no objections, but until then please stop inserting that into this article which is about a religion and a people not a country. If you are very concerned about it, insert it in the Iraq article.Heja Helweda 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But the holocaust is mentioned on the Jewish page and the crusades are mentioned on the Christian page, these are pages concerning a religion, not a race or nation. anyway other people are editing the page, and the reference is not so prominent, so perhaps it would be good for neither of us to edit it again, and let the edits made by others stay as they are.Sennen goroshi 13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cityscape Image

Please do not remove the Image. It is an image that shows the Cityscape. I hope. --Sasanoha 11:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Alphabetical order is not appropriate in all cases. There was no reason to "alphabetise" Japan and Korea - it's only two items, not even a proper list. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, so if you want to change back, I am not going to revert you again. I just hope you are not doing this to put Japan ahead of Korea, for some reason. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I think you are new, so thats why you violated the 3RR rule. Misplaced Pages says that if you edit war (as you are doing on Ahn's article), and revert more than 3 times in one day, you will be blocked. I want to warn you about this, so you don't get into any trouble. Good friend100 15:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I hope what it did wasnt considered to be 3 reverts, the last edit I put was adding new information and trying to come to a compromise..ie not calling him a murderer, a terrorist or an activist. lets wait and see...if I get a 24hr ban, then I guess i misinterpretted the rules.Sennen goroshi 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you don't get banned unless someone reports you. I didn't report you because you probably didn't know about it. Good friend100 16:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indent

Hello Sennen goroshi. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I have found your comment in some talk page, and feel a little thing. Would you use ":" markup after other person's comment? For Example:

Mr/Ms X said that.....

Sennen goroshi said that.....

Mr/Ms X said that.....

If you use this markup, people will get more beautiful and well-ordered discussion. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 10:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

American Werewolf

Hello. I've had a look at the official site, and can't find the word "thriller" anywhere (although the Flash interface is pretty difficult to navigate) - would you mind dropping in at Talk:An American Werewolf in London and explaining where you found it and in what context it's given? --McGeddon 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AT:PA

You don't have to play innocent. I also read a post complaining about your racist attacks on those ethnic groups. There are millions of criminal acts/murders/rapes etc. from every possible ethnic group but they are not mentioned on general articles concerning those groups. Your edits are like adding KKK to an article on American people, or Bin Laden to an article on Arab people. Do you think that I have any respect for someone like you, no. You're just like a sock puppet & that's what I'm describing you as. There's nothing inherently offensive about that. You didn't even apologize, what's the point of running the movie & making all this deal? Do you seriously think that after what you've said at Liancourt Rocks & your attempt to make Ahn Jung-geun a murderer, you can keep that account & continue? This is a friendly advice, quit that account & get a new one - or in future disputes, ppl will attack your edit history & attack your neutrality (also harms your bid chance for adminship). I mean, all this is if you're truly sorry & you want to reform. (Wikimachine 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

truly sorry...excuse me while I split my sides laughing. Try reading the article in question, and finding one racist comment from me. If you are mentioning past records then I'm sure you have more issues than me, considering that you have probably stated in the past that Mother Teresa, Jesus and Ghandi are all Koreans, while Idi Amin, Hitler and cancer all come from Japan and were designed to oppress your people. Misplaced Pages does not need such self congratulating, biased, editors - who play the race card when anyone does not agree word for word with their edits. but please help me...I am truly sorry, I want to reform, I want to be just like you. </sarcasm>

You don't need to thank me on my talk page. I know what I've wrote here was not pleasing or a comedy, at the minimum never a flattery/compliment. (Wikimachine 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Vandalism

The IP's vandalism has ceased now. However, if it flares up again you can ask me to protect it or request a block or protection. bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Sennen goroshi, I am Watermint. How do you do? First of all, please read this Rfa. Although should be ask you before I wrote those, I thank and apologize you for having used your conversation on an administrator's talk page. If you have any question, please let me know. Best Regards, --Watermint 14:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AT:PA 2

Why are you still using this account? I have a much more comprehensive knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policy than you & I've been around for more than 2 years. And don't put me on the same level as Good friend100 (also how'd you know he got blocked, you sure keep track of everything, this is another mistake you made, just quit this account). He's much younger than me. I won't repeat what I've said above. You can directly make protest at WP:ANI. Nobody's scared me with the threat of banning - except for clear-headed admins. (Wikimachine 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

Your edit to Bobby Sands

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to revert you, but someone will. Volunteer is the agreed term that is used. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also read this and please do not start an edit war. Remember the WP:3rr and you will be blocked if you breach it. --Domer48 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sennen goroshi. Your most recent edit to the Bobby Sands article is beginning to look very much like a WP:POINT. Please be aware that there is a long an complex history of discussion about the use of the word "terrorist" and the consensus is that it should be not be used unless specifically attributed. Please discuss the issue, rather than revert warring. Thank you. Rockpocket 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Range block

All IPs you have listed in AIV have been range blocked with 69.234.0.0/16. --D_arkF_alls 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncooperative editing

Hello. I'm afraid your latest edit to Liancourt Rocks () was an uncooperative continuation of an old edit war, at a time when other editors were engaging in a constructive discussion of exactly that point on the talk page, which you apparently ignored. Please be aware that some days ago I placed this article under a new set of administrative rules against uncooperative editing, including a zero-tolerance policy against edit-warring. I'm assuming that you didn't see the warning (just like somebody else yesterday), otherwise I'd have to block you now. Please see Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Intros

Hi! Just to let you, when someone gets ranked as the most influential or most powerful woman in the world (or even one of the most powerful or influential) wikipedia convention is to list this in the intro. Check out the intros of the following women: Angela Merkel, Condi, Julia Roberts,Tyra Banks, Meg Whitman,Faith Hill, Sandra Day O’connor. I don't think you can argue that just because you don't like Oprah or don't think she's important, that therefore her article should be denied the same procedure as all of these articles. Also keep in mind that Oprah's ranking is especially notable because it comes from a magazine as prestigous as Time (which has a long history of ranking influence, going back to the 1920s), and it's an opinion shared by so many other sources. SamanthaG 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the rule is more than 3 times. But please we're reasonable people. We can discuss SamanthaG 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the civil reply

You said it was sex discrimination to mention influence in the intro for Oprah but not Gates. But the difference is Oprah was ranked as the world’s most influential woman, while Gates was not ranked as the world’s most influential man. So even though Gates is arguably a lot more influential than Oprah, only Oprah had the notable achievement of being ranked as the most influential person of an entire gender. As for FDR, his intro mentions that he was ranked as one of the three greatest presidents; mentioning the Time magazine honor would just be redundant.

Your assertion that Oprah hasn’t changed the world is just your opinion. A lot of people feel that the tabloid talk show genre she popularized in the 1980s and the confession culture she created, along with her focus on self-help and new age spirituality had a massive impact on the culture (not just in the U.S. but confession culture had a major impact on the media behavior of the late Princess Diana, and tabloid talk shows have spread through Europe and even morphed into reality TV). Some feel this influence was positive, others feel it was extremely negative. Also keep in mind that few women have wielded extreme influence over a country as globally influential as America for a long period of time, so she doesn’t have to change the world all that dramatically to be the world’s most influential woman, she just has to do more than any other woman. Who is the most influential woman in the world if not Oprah? Angela Merkel of Germany? She’s probably more powerful, but she hasn’t been in power long enough to have had that much of an impact. Oprah’s influence over the world’s sole super power has lasted over two decades. Her media reach is colossal. Few people (male or female) have spoken to so many for so long and so often.

I think it’s extremely notable that the world’s most famous magazine has ranked her as the world’s most influential woman. Your welcome to disagree with their assessment but I don’t think removing cited info from her intro is a productive way to express your disagreement. I disagree with Forbes ranking Condi as the powerful woman in the world in 2004 (I felt she just followed orders from Bush and Cheney), but I would never remove such a notable assessment from her intro because that would be imposing my POV on others. So unless you are prepared to argue that all such assessments should be removed from wikipedia intros, isn't it POV to remove it only from Oprah's? SamanthaG 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I enjoyed reading your civil message

In 2004 Time magazine ranked Pope John Paul II, Bill Gates, Nelson Mandella, and Oprah as the only four people in the entire world who were influential enough to shape both the 20th century and the early 21st. Since Oprah was the only woman to rank among the world’s four most influential people, she was ranked as the world’s most influential woman. Given the international prestige of Time magazine, she is frequently referred to as the world’s most influential woman in major newspapers outside the U.S. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2934348.ece

I respect your argument that some magazine’s opinion about influence isn’t important enough to be in the intro, but Time magazine is the world’s most prestigious publication. So prestigious is Time magazine that when they when they list you as one of the world’s most influential people, they often get world leaders like Nelson Mandella or George W. Bush to write your profile. So notable is Time magazine’s list that when Tony Blair failed to make the list the snub made headlines in Britain. Even wikipedia articles about figures as important as Einstein Pope John Paul II and presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani find room for the Time magazine honor in their intros. Having such an internationally respected publication officially rank Oprah as the world’s most influential woman is her greatest, most significant achievement, and you always put someone’s most significant achievement in their intro. There is no recognition Oprah can get, short of winning the nobel prize that would be more notable. But at the same time it's not the same as saying Oprah is great. Influence can be good or bad, as evidenced by Time magazine also recognizing Hitler on their list.

Now I respect the fact that you showed consistency by removing a similar statement from Condi’s intro and I waited to see what the reaction would be. Your Condi edit was reverted once again reinforcing the idea that wikipedia protocol is to put major assessments of influence in the intro. This would be especially true when the assessment of influence comes from historians recruited by the world’s most prestigious publication-a publication devoted to newsmakers and world events, a publication that has served as the ultimate arbiter of influence since the 1920s. If the assessments of influence/power from magazines like Ladies Home Journal and Life magazine and People en Español's are in the intros of Sandra Day O'Connor, Julia Roberts, Faith Hill, Martha Stewart, Jennifer Lopez, then there’s certainly room for such a notable assessment from Time magazine in Oprah’s into. And while I have great respect for your desire to be NPOV and have enjoyed our civil discourse, there’s an enormous amount of wikipedia precident arguing againt you on this one. SamanthaG 08:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Hi, thank you so much for preventing an edit war. It’s great when editors can disagree but still respect one another’s opinions. My argument for keeping the line in the intro is as follows: Anytime someone is judged to hold a world record, whether it’s Leonid Stadnyk who some consider the world’s tallest man, or Yao Defen, arguabley the world’s tallest woman, this is mentioned in their intro. If something as trivial as being called the world’s tallest woman is notable enough to be in an intro, why not something as important as being called the world’s most influential woman by the world’s most prestigous publication?

Now you raised an excellent point when you implied that extreme praise is not NPOV in an intro, and I’d be inclined to agree. For example, in a contest held by the Discovery Channel and AOL, millions of Americans elected Oprah the greatest woman in American history. This is not mentioned in the intro because it is extreme praise (although FDR’s intro does calls him one of the greatest presidents), however simply calling Oprah the world’s most influential woman is a much more neutral statement because it implies no value judgement since influence can be good or bad. Indeed Oprah’s biggest critics condemn her for having an extreme negative influence on the culture blaming her for starting the trash TV trend, and popularizing pop-psychology and new age mysticism. So in my view, calling someone influential is not at all the same as praising them. Some of the most evil people in history were also some of the most influential.

So thanks again for being open minded enough to consider my view point, and for for being generous enough to save us both from an edit war. SamanthaG 02:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

It seems that in your edit summary for the Myanmar article, you refered to another user as an 'idiot' please be aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and keep such thoughts to yourself. The fact that they tried to change Myanmar to Burma without discussion, and it got reverted, should be enough - there is no need to resort to personal attacks.Sennen goroshi 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When I made the change I though the only change they had made had been to claim that the Union of Myanmar was an unofficial name. I do think such a change is stupid and anyone who makes such a change is either hopelessly misinformed or a POV pushing idiot. So while the comment may not have been worded as best as it could, I make no apologies nor will I change my behaviour in this regard in the future. It is fairly rare I comment so bluntly on behaviour in any case. Indeed your IMHO overeaction makes me more reluctant to do so (I'm not saying this to start a fight just pointing out that as NPA says it's usually best to ignore the occasianal borderline comment). If you check out the comment I made to the specific contributor when I realised what had happened, you will see that I was resonably polite about the bigger issue when I realised what it was. Cheers Nil Einne 06:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dickson Wright

Please see the talk page of Clarissa Dickson Wright. I am concerned about your POV, and also don't appreciate threats. --UpDown 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to apologise for one for that, in the sense that the edits of Zingostar (who I doing a report on) confused me and the meaning of your comment escaped me. Now I understand you. However, all those sources merely state what happended (ie the case), I want a source its contraversial. --UpDown 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my wording wasn't perfect I know, so any wording which gets across the execution may/was illegal I would be happy with. With Dickson Wright, I'm not convinced one break of the law is contravesy. If it was many times, yes, but one. This is where perhaps we need the input of others. --UpDown 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto if opinion is to your side of the edit. I have never heard of Wikiedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements, but it sounds perfect. --UpDown 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

whatever happened to easing new users in to Misplaced Pages with the welcome template?

Welcome!

Hi Sennen goroshi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Mister1nothing 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The warning should be attributed to you.

The anti-sentiment toward Korean (hating Korean) in Japan is not new to Both Japanese or Korean. Don't try to justify the fact of history. I think NPOV is for Japanese trying to vandalize the article related to history of Korean and Japan. Before warning someone with your own judgement, you should read and acknowlodge it first.--Appletrees 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)