User talk:History Student

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:D00315p017.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:D00315p017.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Dance1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dance1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Tomoya Kawakita, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! (|-- UlTiMuS ( U | T | C [] M | E ) 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tulelake.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tulelake.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. tomf688 (talk - email) 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great Tom. You're not bias are you. Any image I have uploaded is perfectly legal. You're not a very good example of unbias history and we will find a way to get around you if Wikipedia intends on being taken seriously.

[edit] Japanese American internment

I believe that you intended to move the article Japanese American internment to Japanse American Evacuation of 1942. You failed to do so. You created a dulicated of the aricle. I corrected the mistake. If you feel the article should be renamed first discuss it on the talk page of Japanese American internment. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talk page. Jon513 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I reverted your change to WP:RFPP, and replaced your unprotection request under the proper section. Do not remove other people's comments from official pages. Syrthiss 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 03:54, 19 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 Beback 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a load of crap, Will. I will get around your IP block.

[edit] Hey there

I like having new info added to the internment article, but please consider moderating your behavior. No one will stand for the huge photo of the Tule lake protest. At least give those of us not bent on covering up the truth something we can revert to when the WillBeBacks of the world come callin? Justforasecond 07:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Notice my first edit was met with the comment of "repartions garbage" from GMatsuda on the discussion page. I have been met with hostility from the pro-repartions activists from the beginning. I did not delete their information, only included my own.

The discussion page under the article has a long list of edits that included moving the Tule Lake photo to another section of the article. Curious to know why you think people won't stand for the photo, though. Is it a bit of historical truth they find uncomfortable acknowledging? It's not like it's a lie.

Will blocked my IP. I can spoof my IP if I want but have yet to do so. Also thanks to whomever returned my content to the "Japanese Relocation" page minus the large Tule Lake pic.

The pic itself is OK, but no one will stand for a huge 600px version of it. i haven't seen any articles with photos that large, and in the case of tule lake, i don't think we have evidence that those people were typical of those in the camps. Justforasecond 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: ""want additions included in article""

Decline reason: "3RR block applied correctly afaict, after being warned"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

What is your reasoning for requesting the unblock? Syrthiss 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I want my additions included in this article. I left the pro-reparations pov information in the edit even though it is not cited and factually incorrect. They on turn deleted all of my information, put a block on the site and attempted to block my IP address.

They have made every excuse imaginable for deleting my contribution while explaining away their bad history. It's a totally bias pro-reparations movement article in its current form.

Continuing to edit from an IP while blocked can be viewed as block evasion, and could result in resetting the timer on your block... I'm not going to do that as you are new, and the page in question is protected anyhow. As an aside, I can tell you right now that if you come into an article calling everyone pro reparations apologists you're going to have a very tough time getting your changes across. The block on this account probably only is for another 12 hours... You did break 3RR (as your IP address and as History Student, after being warned not to. Syrthiss 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Syrthiss' opinion here. I don't have any idea about the content dispute, but the 3-revert rule is there to prevent editing disagreements from getting out of hand and disrupting things. That's what happened here, and a block is appropriate to allow you to cool off for a while. Mangojuicetalk 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Hairsalon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hairsalon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I feel compelled to inform you I am seriously considering User: Justforasecond's RfC against you. However, I would like to attempt to resolve my dispute with you here first, in good faith.

I have engaged you on multiple occasions on the Talk page, attempting to resolve your concerns regarding POV within the article as well as address additions which you wish to add. Generally, you have been fairly respectful to me, although you have occasionally interepreted my comments as a personal attack rather than a good faith attempt at working with you to clarify the issues involved.

However, you seem to have abandoned conversations with me in favor of engaging User: Justforasecond, User: tomf688, and User: Ishu. In your conversations with them, you have repeatedly engaged in inflammatory name calling and failure to assume good faith. You have also made efforts to promote your side of the issue through direct editing of the article rather than through discussion on the talk page. Although your behavior in this last point has improved, on 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) you stated your intent to resume such behavior. I can understand your abandonment of conversation with me as a time issue; it seems to me that your position is being opposed by multiple parties, and it takes time to respond to all of these parties. However, I cannot ignore that you are using your responses to engage in name calling.

I have asked you before, on the Talk page, to refrain from such activities. (See "Perhaps semiprotection would have been adequate?" on the Talk page for this.) You have not. I am now asking you more directly to act more respectfully, despite the heated nature of the dispute, towards all members of Wikipedia. I appreciate your heretofore relatively respectful attitude towards me, but this must be extended to everyone if your contributions are to be acceptable.

Please feel free to reply either here or on my own Talk page. --Ogthor 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how easy it is to spoof one's IP and create multiple log-ins on Wikipedia? The internet is not a perfect science and you'll never be able to truly be rid of me so let's stop this RfC sillines (whatever RfC is) and get down to working on the article. You'll see from my most recent bombastic comment that thus far my experience collaberating with others on Wikipedia (actually two or three people because the vast majority could care less about this history) has been met with a high degree of skepticism.

I don't believe the current article or its authors are being put to the same degree of scrutiny as me. There has been a lot of lip service and that is about it. While I might come across as less than civil to you it is also fair to say I am the most educated on the complexities of this history than any person currently contributing to this discussion. Why not try to use my knowledge.

--History Student 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In my view, others are not being put to the same degree of scrutiny as you because of the difference in behavior between you and they, not the viewpoint. I agree with your general stance that there is a problem with POV within the article, hence my (and others') attempts at working with you to resolve these issues. Your contributions are being singled out because they are changes to the existing article which are bold and controversial. While being bold is a prime suggestion for Wikipedians, one must expect that controversial additions will face a certain level of scrutiny - as I'm sure you'll agree is warranted. If someone made an edit to the article claiming that there was some sort of government conspiracy to cover up the existence of gas chambers, and that reparations money was actually "hush money", I anticipate you would be inclined to revert the article until such a controversial change could be satisfactorily cited. I am not suggesting that your changes are so radical as my example, nor even that your changes are unwarranted; rather, given the previous state of the article, your changes are significant enough to warrant close scrutiny to ensure their verifiability.
The bulk of the complaint against you, so far as I can tell, is not the content of your contributions. It is the method in which you contribute. This is why your additions are consistently being "attacked": because the way in which you have contributed has offended other Wikipedians' sense of correct procedure.
I for one would appreciate the inclusion of most of the additions which you have so far proposed. I also would support you in your efforts to remove POV in the article as it currently stands (which in fact I have done). But your efforts must be channeled through a certain method which you have so far not recognized. As has been repeatedly stated on the Talk page, we wish to find a certain measure of consensus before making siginificant changes to the article. Even if you're 100% sure that your additions are verifiable and relevant to the article, you may still find consensus go against you. Wikipedia suggests in this case that you graciously accept the outcome of such a dispute, and wait to see if someone else in the future takes up your cause, in which case you would have another ally with which you could attempt to reverse the previous outcome. However, and Wikipedia is very clear on this, it is not acceptable to impose your changes on the article in the face of opposition to your changes. If you feel that your contributions are being unfairly opposed, there is a process through which you can make your complaint known which I would be glad to outline for you. As somewhat of a side note, I have found that in disputes such as these, outcomes tend to err on the side of not making the change, though I have not found any Wikipedia guideline suggesting this as a policy.
Once again, if you are willing to follow correct procedure, I am willing to act as an ally in your efforts to craft a balanced article. I am currently on the fence regarding your RfC (as you have indicated you are unfamiliar with what the RfC process entails, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with it here), pending the outcome of this discussion. I await your reply, either here or on my talk page.--Ogthor 00:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for not being more appreciative of your Holocaust denier analogy. I have heard it before from the far left so am not surprised. It's pretty obvious the bias at Wikipedia is so ingrained you folks can't even acknowledge you're being biased.

My bombastic demeaner is a red herring. It's too bad the two or three people who have posted here can't get past that and attempt to focus more on substance than form.

In the end the article speaks for itself. There has been a lot of lip service, no edits and the history is wrong. I susepct it is a common tactic here to wear down opinion in the hope that it will go away. I might as well be debating with someone who believes George Washington is the 16th president. That's a more correct analogy of whats going on here.

P.S. As I mentioned elsewhere, I searched every article I could find related to this history and every last one was slanted pro-reparations pov, including the article up since last year that does a nice job sliming David Lowman. No wonder Wikipedia got busted last year.

--History Student 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I was not clear in my last post. I did not intend to compare your stance to that of holocaust deniers. Rather, I was illustrating a (pretty extreme) example of a controversial change which could be made to the Japanese American Internment article: If someone were to make an edit in the article arguing that there had been gas chambers at the Japanese camps, that there was a government conspiracy to hide this fact, and that reparations money was actually "hush money" to prevent interned Japanese Americans from revealing the truth, such an edit would face a high level of scrutiny. In retrospect, this example is a bit labored and should probably be ignored; I merely wished to clarify. The point I was trying to make was that your additions to the article are a significant change to what the article had been. Although I believe most of your additions will ultimately be helpful to the article, the fact that your edits are such a drastic change inspires close scrutiny. Reverts are possible in these circumstances, but if after discussion the edit is found to be beneficial, it is likely to be reinserted.
The problem with the process in this case is that you have failed to treat others' actions in good faith, and you have gone out of your way to accuse other users of having ulterior motives, to the extent of alleging that the article is being protected by some sort of activist cabal. This sort of language alienates others and discourages them from engaging you in constructive dialogue. Ishu, myself, and other users have attempted to discuss ways of making the article better despite your behavior, but continued misbehavior in the face of direct requests to cease such actions cannot be ignored. If your "bombastic demeanor" is in fact a "red herring", I urge you to end the charade. The attitude serves only to invigorate opposition against you. The "two or three users who have posted here" have tried to get past your behavior and focus more on substance than form. However, they have done so under the impression that, given polite requests to do so, the "form" will gradually "conform" so that discussion can occur in a more civil manner. Your failure to improve in this regard has led to the RfC against you.
I (once again) agree with you that the article as it is now can be improved. But the way in which improvement occurs is just as important as the improvement itself. It is against the stated policies of Wikipedia for one user to edit an article as a means of resolving a content dispute. The dispute must be resolved first, on the talk page, then edits can occur. Your analogy of argiung with someone who believes George Washington was the 16th president is inaccurate; it would be fairer to compare the current dispute to a heated discussion over the life of George Washington, with one disputant constantly accusing others of being unpatriotic.
As for your assessment that other, related articles suffer from POV problems similar to those within the Japanese American Internment article, I would urge you to concentrate your efforts on a single article, improving it through the correct process, then moving on to fix another area. If you edit other articles in the same manner as you have this one, I predict you will face much the same response.
This is the most important paragraph of my reply. Please read it carefully. You are accused of engaging in unacceptable behavior within an RfC. It is your responsibility to educate yourself as to the implications and the seriousness of this accusation; if you need help understanding the nature of the assertions made against you all you need do is ask. It is unacceptable to accuse other users of being POV activists. It is essential that you assume good faith in regards to other users actions. It is unacceptable to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I ask you directly, here and now, whether you intend to change your behavior. If you fail to give me a direct answer to this question, I must interpret that as intent to continue behaving unacceptably.
I apologize for the harsh tone, but it is important that you understand exactly what I mean.--Ogthor 07:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Knittinghart.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Knittinghart.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey again

you have some things to say, how about saying them the right way? if you play nice you'll make a difference in the world's understanding of history, but if you keep doing things like inserting that gigantic tule lake photo you'll just annoy other editors.

Justforasecond 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys tool down my evacuation article. Not cool!

--History Student 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese American Evacuation of 1942

You have recently created the article Japanese American Evacuation of 1942. This was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate the article: if you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Do not create Japanese American Evacuation of 1942 again without requesting deletion review. In addition, do not upload Image:Hairsalon.jpg again either, without stating where you got it from and the image's copyright status. If you do either of these again, you will be blocked from editing. This is your only warning. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No kidding? What's that policy? Anything you guys don't agree with? What a joke!

Watch me use another ID and IP address, Kimchee. --History Student 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by persistently creating a POV fork despite being warned not to. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Kimchi.sg 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for using sockpuppets to get around a final warning. Your block will expire in 96 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Any further abuse of Wikipedia will lead to further, potentially longer, blocks. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Malo, does the fact you're Japanese have anything to do with the ban or is that just coincidence? I would be curious to know how many of the folks here to adamantly opposed to my contributions are ethnic Japanese. --History Student 15:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History Student, please post on this page (unless you've been blocked from editing this page), or E-mail an uninvolved admin. (And stop using IP spoofing or open proxies to bypass the block, even if it is easy.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes sir!! --History Student 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)