User talk:Tyler111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After sleeping on the matter, I want to make a few statements.

1. I apologize for some of my comments.
2. I apologize for reverting without examining some of your edits; however, many of these reverts were justified. Some were not, however, and that is what I apologize for.
3. I apologize to all for breaking the three-revert rule.
4. I hope I haven't totally discouraged you. I should know better than to be reading my watchlist at 5am after a rough day. Now that I see you've made an account, I haven't totally discourage you.

Anyway, to all, I apologize. --Golbez 21:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

If you havn't already seen, note that a number of images you uploaded have been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Infrogmation 18:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Alert

Please read 3RR. Do not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. This includes edits that have the effect of undoing other people's work, such as your 4 reverts in the last 24 hours at Japan. If you continue, you will be reported and blocked. Thank you.--Questionfromjapan 09:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Will (message me!) 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Ryulong 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are instructions on how to archive pages at WP:ARCHIVE. Ryulong 09:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan FA

Please be more reasonable. One editor has complained there is TOO MUCH history on the article. Given he is still unhappy, can't you accept we're trying to keep a lot of content? It's impossible if half the people that oppose the article do so because of one thing and the other half demand completely the opposite. John Smith's 09:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WWII is hardly mentioned because there is so much history to cover - periods only get general coverage. And there is a link to war crimes at the end. As I said, please explain how I can satisfy both you and the other guy at the same time. John Smith's 09:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to suggest changes. It's no good saying "I want more balance", "I want more history". However you are bordering on too much bias if you accuse the article of being a "propaganda piece" just because it doesn't describe WWII with all the gore. However I will add a few bits on to the end about the war crimes, as that's consistent with the Germany article. John Smith's 09:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I know it's just half a sentance but there's not much space. If people want to learn more they should use the links - that's what they're for. Please remember I am trying to please two conflicting demands. I can't discuss WWII in any more detail here - that's for the History of Japan page. If you have some small suggestions, such as how to fill in the early history, please make them. Though it has to be something worthwhile and sourced. John Smith's 09:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you please consider changing your "oppose" to "comment"? As the vote is very finely balanced, if you continue to oppose it it may fail before we can address these problems. If you go neutral it will keep the article alive (as there still won't be consensus). John Smith's 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I still need to see a suggestion as to what you want to put in/how you want to merge sections. Also what are you going to add?

"Forced prostitution" is describing what went on - "comfort women" describes the people that had to do it.

So are you going to change your vote to a neutral one or not? As I said if you really want the article improved you need to keep it alive. People won't look upon your requests favourably if your oppose vote kills it off. John Smith's 10:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring my point about your oppose vote? If you refuse to consider changing to "comment" I won't help you and you can do it by yourself. John Smith's 10:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't worry about the last comment. I realised that because it's mild and the other support is mild that should balance it all out. Also I sense you have a desire to improve the page, whereas the other guy seems stubborn and just wants his demand "dealt with". He didn't even say how much the history page needs to be reduced by. John Smith's 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyler it's very kind of you to do that, but I need more time and a clearer idea of what you want changed. I'm sorry, but I can't help you if you don't help me. Also I have only a limited amount of time on wikipedia to do serious work. John Smith's 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion of the Mahayana Buddhism bit is that it doesn't talk about the periods in between either (as to what Japan was doing) and it has no sources. We shouldn't just throw in a token reference to that. As to combining the other two periods that is fine if you can come up with an appropriate suggestion.

Maybe the 20th century doesn't need quite so much, but a lot happened then to Japan and the world. Whereas say in the Edo period of Japanese history not that much happened of note. John Smith's 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! The issues in news reports are to do with how the war is taught, not an overemphasis on Meiji history onwards. Besides there is mention of influence from Asia as early as the Yagyoi section. John Smith's 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, why don't you insert the extract on Buddhism with the reference - please remember to format the citation - and we can go from there. Unless you have something else specific to want to add, a general complaint about "ignoring" Asian neighbours isn't helpful. Maybe you see it as a long-term thing to be discussed on the talk page of the article itself and not tie it to the FA nomination. After all we shouldn't debate it just amongst ourselves. John Smith's 12:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)