User talk:Mackan/Archive Jun 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A few things...

One, I lifted your JLPT box and made a 二級 version, but it won't set right on my page for some reason. Is there some page placement formatting I'm not seeing? I would also suggest that you consider adding that template to userbox space (and set the parameters for 1 through 4), because it's really quite neat.

Two, I thought 2ch was moderated to a point; have you tried contacting them regarding these WP issues arising through 2ch canvassing? MSJapan 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, moving it to userbox space makes sense, but I don't really know how to. By all means, feel free to do it yourself though. I have no idea why it's not working properly for you, I think I just copied a babel userbox... Mackan 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and 2ch, well, no, I don't think it's moderated, see 2channel#Free_speech. Mackan 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I apparently misread the div as page formatting as opposed to userbox formatting. I'll try to figure out how userbox space works once I get through the Asahi sources. It seems 2ch is moderated as needed in extremem cases. MSJapan 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "2ch meatpuppet"

Thanks for the note, but I have to ask: what the hell is a "2ch meatpuppet"? --Calton | Talk 07:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that. 2ch, 2channel is an enormous Japanese BBS (as you might be aware of). A meatpuppet, also sometims referred to as single-purpose account is similar to a sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Meatpuppets). A 2ch meatpuppet is then a "2channeler" who has found his way to Wikipedia through external canvassing of a wiki article on a 2ch thread. Specifically, I'm referring to this thread and it's 16 predecessors, called "let's stop the Korean forgery on Wikipedia, 17", and the nationalistic, anti-Korean, "bakauyo" Japanese users who have emerged on Wikipedia, stemming from that thread. Mackan 07:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nit-Picking

Thanks for the nit-picking. Good to see you're still "contributing." Mister-jones 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you'd take it personally that I moved the new talk page section you made to the bottom of the talk page, that's just how talkpages are arranged here. Do you really think I made it out of spite towards you? And do you really think that comment you just made was necessary? Mackan 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that you constantly make references to my demeanor as it was over three months ago, yes and yes. Sorry, but if you're going to have a difficult time getting past things, then I guess I'll hold you to them.
Mister-jones 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to show your attitude to Wikipedia has changed, this does not strike me as the best way to do it. I have put the Video Journalism editing conflict behind me, and I have not made any mention of your "past demeanor" since 23 April. Mackan 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point, but that does not really surprise me.
Mister-jones 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry

Mackan, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not comfortable making any blocks based on the evidence you've provided. I agree that it looks like the 2ch forums are being used for recruitment, but since I can't read Japanese I don't feel like I can fully evaluate the situation, and I would rather not make any blocks based on translations. I suggest that you make a post at WP:ANI, where you can hopefully find an administrator who knows Japanese and can investigate the matter, and consider filing a Checkuser on Azukimonaka/Necmate/etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've tried posting on ANI - I find I'm always ignored (i.e. not a single reply from any admin), I suppose most admins are afraid of dealing with the problem since most of the evidence is in Japanese. Mackan 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm an example of that. If you post on ANI, I'll at least chip in with a comment saying I think the situation needs to be watched. There must be a list of admins who can speak/read Japanese somewhere...maybe I'll try investigating through userboxes or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be much appreciated. I'll let you know if I post about it on ANI. Mackan 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion - conservative blogs

Hi Mackan, I'm curious.. yesterday you marked three blogs for speedy deletion, all within minutes of each other, all of them described as "conservative". How did you get to them? Were you going over all the blogs under "blogs" and those were the only three on the list with no "reason for being"? Thanks. Misheu 07:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Even if had targeted conservative blogs, which I certainly didn't, it would still be irrelevant because any article properly asserting its notability won't be deleted. I've told you once, and I'll tell you again: comment on content, not on the contributor. Mackan 08:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this is the reason I'm turning to you on your user page. Because I'm curious and because I have a personal question. If you don't want to answer, that's ok. Misheu 08:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did go through the blog category, and randomly opened up a few blog articles. Any blog which didn't seem to assert it's notability, I put a speedy deletion tag on. I do not see why this is relevant though - you are clearly trying to bring the editor and not the contributions into this, you are trying to judge if I'm anti-conservative or not. My political stance, I can assure you, is completely irrelevant and absolutely none of your business. Mackan 08:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. You don't seem to even put in the effort ot read the discussion page, look at "what links" etc., but have fun. Misheu 08:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, nor should I have to. Any claims of notability should be in the article, and it's wholly irrelevant how many articles are linking to it.
I will ask you to not post any further comments on my talk page but instead keep the discussion at the appropriate talk page. Mackan 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zainichi Korean move

Hey --- regarding Zainichi Korean, I think it's clear that a move based on WP:UE doesn't really have consensus, so that argument will probably just go around in circles. However, the remaining reason for the move (that the article should include all Koreans in Japan regardless of their citizenship status, and the new title is the best way of ensuring this) seems to have wider acceptance; would you mind commenting on why you disagree with that? I'm hoping we can come up with some way of resolving this that's acceptable to you, since I know you've been involved in trying to maintain neutrality on Joji Obara and other articles related to this topic and I'd like to know more about your thinking here. Incidentally, some authors writing in English seem to use the term Zainichi even for ethnic Koreans with Japanese citizenship, so I personally don't mind including them in the scope of the article, but it seems other editors may have an issue with it. Cheers, cab 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you want me to reply here or at the Zainichi-talk page, but I guess I'll start here. Let me just start out by saying I really appreciate that you are trying to reach a wider acceptance, most wouldn't when those opposing are such an obvious minority.
You've obviously showed that "Koreans in Japan" isn't really a neologism, so that's not something I'm holding on to, but I still disagree with the move proposal, because I think that even if you move the article to "Koreans in Japan", and allow inclusion of non-Zainichi information, it will still be mainly on Zainichi Koreans. And if that's the case, I don't think there's really any good reason to move the article. I'm hesitant as to the amount of things that can be said of the non-Zainichi Korean population, and also, I feel uncertain to which extent it's fair to refer to ethnic Koreans, with Japanese names and Japanese nationality, as "Koreans in Japan". But even more so, it feels to me like we're accidentally throwing a perfectly good name for the article out the window, a name which is used extensively in literature (perhaps not "Zainichi Korean" as much as "Zainichi", but "Zainichi Korean" is the clearest and most neutral word to describe this group of people) and is generally well-known.Mackan 11:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DDRG

The sources never backed up the claims (and I think DDRG was hoping nobody could find the sources), but ask for unprotect on WP:RFPP. If the mess starts up again, we have clear indication of disruptive editing, as there was more than enough time allowed for dispute resolution. MSJapan 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to know, thanks. Mackan 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RS

『学研国語大辞典』金田一春彦、池田弥三郎編、昭和58年3月30日　初版　第12刷 page 216 says おおきに　is a shortened form of おおきにありがとう. You can find it in the homepage called めざせNATIVE関西人 too. --Oda Mari 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Oda Mari. I do trust you that ookini is a shortened form of "ookini arigaotu" but since it's not normal in everyday conversation, I'm not sure it's really necessary to include it in that list. Maybe make it a note within <ref>-tags?
It's Kansai-ben, and usually only gets used in touristy places, so no, it's not ordinary. Neither is "maido" (similar shortening). MSJapan 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assume Good Faith and the number of blogs put up for AfD

I left a lengthy reply in the appropriate AfD page about this issue, but I am a big fan of being concise, so hopefully this will help. You are enamored of WP:AGF. Note that it says this:

Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence. On the first count, I am going to have to ask that you explain why you have (apparently) nominated so many political blogs recently. This does not have to be a painful answer, and I am honestly quite sure that your answer will demonstrate that you edited in good faith. It is within everybody's rights - be they Nick mallory, Mackan, or somebody else - to ask this question.

Secondly, you have repeatedly accused the other side of not assuming good faith, and in my case I think that is unreasonable. This is contrary to the spirit of WP:AGF and the reasons for that are explained in Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith.

You may answer here, or in my Talk page, or we may get an admin. I do not intend to waste my time with procedure; it's time to get serious. --Edwin Herdman 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Struck out the request for an explanation. I think you're making it hard on yourself by not explaining it, but that's none of my business. --Edwin Herdman 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me too advise you. AGF is one of the rules that do not have to be said. if someone is not doing it , that will be obvious. The others at AfD pay attention to the dynamics, and we know how to tell people who are point-pushers, or concentrating on removing all articles from their opponents or defending everything that suits their point of view. Everyone will recognize people who are making unfair criticisms without it having to be pointed out each time. I am not a very calm person by nature, and I find it helps to just argue the particular case at hand. If there are accusations of unfairness, first, be sure you are being fair, and then just ignore them. I also find that it helps not to nominate too many similar articles at a time--it is better to start with the worst, spread it out, and let support develop. Best wishes. DGG 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Edwin, I have no idea what you are on about? I've been offline for the past few days. Is there anything you want me to clarify, please post a concise and and comprehensible reply below.Mackan 09:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That goes to you too, DGG. I do not really understand what it is you're trying to tell me? Mackan 09:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)