User talk:Bueller 007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Nanking Massacre
I wish you luck. Unfortunately, this page is extremely controversial and has consistently been hijacked by POV warriors (Chinese nationalists) who are not interested in trying to present a balanced or considered analysis of the massacre; their purpose is to advertise the horror of the massacre and the culpability of the Japanese to the hilt. Their weapon is to dismiss anything that challenges or calls into question the hardline Chinese view as "revisionist". All Japanese sources are considered ipso facto suspect, which is a good indication of their mentality. I don't think your POV tag will go unchallenged.
Later note: I have now been accused of having a "blatant anti-chinese biase" and of making "inflammatory remarks" by an ethnic Chinese contributor living in Australia. As I said, I wish you luck. User:Bathrobe
-
- Thanks for the note; I won't delete it. I agree that the problem exists on both sides. It's a sad state of affairs.
Bathrobe 11:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- sorry about being away so long. :) I'm involved in a big and "productive" edit and I was keeping myself away from edit war(s). For one, you can delete anything which doesn't have source. FWBOarticle
So anyone who supports China is a Chinese nationalist is it? Then you must be a Holocaust denier and stooge of the Jap government.--PatCheng 02:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise to User Bueller 007 for attracting this kind of comment (the kind of comment made by PatCheng) to his talk page. I think that PatCheng's comment is highly unconstructive, but it is obvious that talking about "Chinese nationalists" is only going to inflame passions and harden divisions. If you wish, please go ahead and delete my original post, which identified the behaviour of Chinese nationalists as a problem; that will stop it doing any more harm.
User:Bathrobe 13 April
-
- With regard to Miborovsky's warning on the Nanking Massacre talk page, I do sympathise with your situation, i.e., making well-motivated changes, only to have them reverted without reasonable cause being shown. But Miborovsky does have a point: it's not really right to attack people over the level of their English. Wikipedia generally encourages people who don't speak English that well to contribute to articles, on the basis that other people can come along and edit or improve them later. The problem with making personal attacks is that people tend to judge you more by the attacks than by your arguments and, rightly or wrongly, you end up losing credibility. Since the changes you are making are for the good, and are not one-sided attempts to impose a Japanese point of view, it would be a pity if they were to be rejected for the wrong reasons.
- User:Bathrobe 13 April (not logged in)
I checked the current state of the Nanking Massacre article. IMO, the overall structure of ther article is far better than what it was. Obviously, some allegation are unsourced and some are just plain incorrect. The 10000 corpse ditich photo, for example, cannot be part of Nanking massacre. IMO, the telegraph should be in however, you can insert the background so no one get confused. Vapour
- I'm FWBOarticle. There was a complaint about my username so I changed it. Vapour
Thanks for the reference. It is a great pity that their translated version of War Crime Tribunal does not have original transcript in English. Vapour
Sorry for the comment I made.--PatCheng 02:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nanking Massacre and reference cleanup
My apologies. I've been trying to work through Category:Wikipedia references cleanup and reduce the number of articles in the category by cleaning up the references on them. A lot of the articles are in pretty bad condition--numbers in brackets which refer to a badly formatted bibliography; bracket references ([1]); etc. Reading through Nanking Massacre, I noticed that it had footnotes, a further list of references, and quite a few external links, thought it was a great article and that it didn't particularly need any cleanup. Obviously, though, content disputes can be pretty vicious, and I can see why you'd need something like refernece cleanup. I imagine {{unsourced}} would be pretty much giving anybody free reign to remove content... Perhaps a template along the lines of "This article has an extensive bibliography but no footnotes; please match entries in the bibliography to parts of the text and convert these bibliography entries to footnotes" should be created...
Anyway, I've gone and reinserted the {{citation style}} tag, and again, my apologies. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Hakapik.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hakapik.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
 |
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you this Rosetta Barnstar for your translation of Fundamental Law of Education (and other articles). Cheers :) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Japanese-Korean treaty articles
Thank you very much for fulfilling my request at Translation into English/Japanese and starting English articles for the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1904 and the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1907! Wikipeditor 08:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prodding
Please provide an edit summary when you prod an article, as anyone with the article on the watchlist may miss the nomination. And if the title is wrong, you should consider just moving the article - it is not a argument for deletion. Tupsharru 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Leaving an edit summary is in general considered to be courteous, but it is obviously especially so when an article might be deleted. The PROD argument "Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's no reason the word "sake brewmaster" cannot be used in its stead" looks to me as if you really should move the article; if the occupation is important, as the article claims, there is no reason for it to be deleted. I suggest that you take it to WP:AFD. Tupsharru 12:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- BTW, perhaps making it automatic would be a good idea, if it is possible. Tupsharru 12:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Black October
If you're gonna fuckin' move the page, you should click "What links here" and change all the links to Black October (album). --PDTantisocial 01:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE:
Blow cock, I didn't come on and fuck with your pages.
[edit] RE:
I clicked the "What Links Here" link and it had the Brand Nubian page, the Sadat X page and my page, those were the three I clicked on, so I thought you didn't change shit, that's why I sent the message.
[edit] RE:
I moved it after changing the links.
