User talk:Synthe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WP:3RR

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a WP:3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks in advance. El_C 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! You been asked repeatedly not to SHOUT or overuse bold text on the discussion at Talk:Mr._Popo. Please remember that such measures are rarely needed, and to assume good faith. LinaMishima 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. You have been asked already to be civil, assume good faith, and stop SHOUTing and overusing bold text. Please stop. LinaMishima 00:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. You have been warned repeatedly to remain civil. Your cries of "child author" also sound dangerously close to a personal attack to me. Just stay calm, use reason, and follow the reasoning given by others. LinaMishima 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability

Taken directly from the policy:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Please find a reference first. When looking for references for the allegations, no character descriptions called Mr. Popo indian, that's why I'm happy removing this. Also, his character design (and indeed official race) are more arabic. LinaMishima 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Theres no proof that mr popo is based on blacks but a bunch of sources by idiots. you know that this is the truth stop trying to defend the side of a very low number.

WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV do not limit wikipedia's coverage to that indended by the original concept. WP:NPOV infact requires that all significant opinions be aired appropriately. For your opinions on the original design (in which the blackface similarity is accidental) to be expressed more strongly, I advise you once again to find a reference for this. LinaMishima 22:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Mr Crying Racism Man(deeceevoice) does not have a reliable source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

And if you reply DO NOT DO "give me references" i could easily make a geocities site explaining why i don't think mr popo is based on blackface(claim of a crying racism idiot) and say its a source.

Synth 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

? you there? Synth 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Synth 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


I am going to assume good faith that "crying racism man" is an attempt to describe what decee has been doing, not a personal attack, but I advise you to be careful. Synth, please be civil and assume that editors do other activities than just editing. Now, with respect to the sources, a geocities site would be a poor reference. However, we have a published essay and a piece written by a sociology professor. You currently have none, and are infact threatening now to establish sockpuppet references. If you wish to insert speculation again, you will need a reference. Finally, I hope you realise that I linked to one of the articles you linked to (WP:VERIFY) in my message, and cited it for the removal of your claims (WP:NOR). Please abide by policy, even if it does run counter to your personal opinion. LinaMishima 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats stupid thats like saying a smart person that doesn't know a answer to a question is better then then a kid that knows the answer to that question. The article is not written by a sociology professor but by a person most likey a student using 30 opinion sites to make his article.Synth 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to quote from the sources "Like several other animé characters, Mr. Popo has been the cause of some degree of controversy. For some, Mr. Popo, with his inky skin; wide eyes; and prominent, bright-red lips, is a variant of darky iconography, a racist style of caricature. [1]"

The source here http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/newforms/ a image of mr popo on the top oh yes its actually proof?

New anti-Black images are also found in the popular children's games Pokemon and Dragonball Z. The Pokemon character Jynx has jet-black skin, large protruding pink lips, gaping eyes, a straight blond mane, and a full figure, complete with cleavage and wiggly hips. Carole Boston Weatherford, a cultural critic, described Jynx as "a dead ringer for an obese drag queen."16 Anti black? how is a Image of a character of indian art black and anti black?

"16. Carole Boston Weatherford, "Japan's bigoted exports to kids." Opinion section. The Christian Science Monitor, May 4, 2000, p.9." That so called professer mis quoted a article that only said the below

Mr. Popo Mr. Popo, a Dragonball Z character, is a rotund genie, dwarfish, with pointed ears, jet-black skin, and large red lips. He is a loyal servant.

Mr popo is a GENIE NOT A BLACK, Dwarf what kind of person can't be short? Pointed ears so? elfs have pointed ears but they aren't racist because crying racist idiots are idiots, Jet black skin Why can't hindu art have black skin? i see indians all the time and there skin is brown or black... Large red lips? You mean any portayal of a person with black skin and large red lips is racism unless its a white person with large lips? Loyal servent.. to a white man? NO HE IS A SERVANT TO A GREEN MAN WITH POINTY EARS AND A STRANGE HEAD SHAPE NOT A WHITE PERSON

I have quoted the source myself DO NOT DO THE REFERENCE CRAP REPLY TO ME thats the same thing deeceevoice did when he couldn't back up his source accuracy (actually he proofed the sources In-accuracy) Synth 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not written by a sociology professor but by a person most likey a student using 30 opinion sites to make his article. That, I am afraid, is a truely false assertion, for if you read the essay, it concludes with "Dr. David Pilgrim, Professor of Sociology, Ferris State University, Jan., 2001". I have checked that he did work there, and indeed he still does. The use of referenced sources as shown is good practice, and on matters with little clear definition, such as art and racism, opinion is ultimately all that exists. This is not a problem for wikipedia, however, as we have to express all prominant opinions.
Before we go any further, I ask you to read the article Blackface, on this style of art. The similarity is quite clear.
The part you claim as a quote is certainly not a quote from the christian lady's essay - if so, it is plagarism for this to not be clearly acknowledged, and I find it highly unlikely that a professor would make such a simile, career destroying mistake.
You are also reminded again that genie and dijin tend to be of arabic origin, not indian, so your repeated insistance of the indian connection is quite perplexing. Indeed, this connection does not exclude the image appearing racist.
Now, I also advise you read this for more background on japanese stereotyping, and this for more general information from a respected member of the anime community.
Finally, I remind you again that there is rarely a need for SHOUTing and overuse of bold text. LinaMishima 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I seen blackface and mr popo can't be blackface if all of his body is black,blackface would be whites with blacked face and white skin, does it matter? genie dijin they don't have any connections with blacks. YOU DIDN'T WATCH DRAGONBALL SO YOU DON'T KNOW MR POPO'S PERSONALITY HIS PERSONALITY IS A MARTIAL ARTS TEACHER WITH PROPHET LIKE SPEECH WATCH DRAGONBALL EPISODE 127-130 AND TELL ME IF YOU WILL THINK HIS PERSONALITY IS OF A STEORYTYPE I WATCHED THOSE EPISODES MYSELF AND HE ACTS NOTHING LIKE A STEROTYPE.

That anime link was telling about jet black skin.... BLACK SKIN MR POPO HAS BLACK SKIN BUT HE IS NOT BASED ON BLACKS

Even the Dragonball character, Mr. Popo, represents the sambo character with his jet-black skin, big wide eyes, oversized red lips, and subservient speech and mannerisms.

...... is he visiting japan or repeating something that Child author article? also i read that article what does he want? a transformation into a black man? Synth 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Look if i ripped out the part where they showed mr popo in the dragonball show would you take a look at it rather then reading obsurd articles? Synth 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, if you wish a continuing dialogue, stop SHOUTING, it's not really needed and comes accross as quite incivil.
Now, if you would look again at the blackface article, you will see that this is quite the misnomer and infact some of the most famous examples, such as the gollywog, are entirely black across all their body.
With respect to DBZ, I've seen the occasional episode, but shounen isn't my thing, really. The depiction of the character is really irrelivent to the issue here of "do some people think this", which as we've established, they do. Your offer of ripping the episode is kind, but therein again lies an issue - the article itself expresses a difference in the dub and sub voiceacting, with the english-language voiceover being much more intelectual than the japanese version. The [black travels article was provided to help you understand the social context of the issue, as Japan is not actually the most forwards country in the world. It's a tale from a black person visiting japan, and their experiences there.
Personally, knowing the japanese, was intended to be quite a distinct caricature, however japanese opinions on deciency are somewhat different to western values, and as such it was not intended at all to be racist (indeed, the idea it could be seen that way would probably have not occured to them). However that is the interpretation that is sadly quite self-evidently possible.
Please understand, I do not hold such strong views against this, but rather I hold strong views about correctly documenting matters as is appropriate for an encyclopedia. LinaMishima 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shutup your only using the source argument aginist me. oh yes a opinion article of a professer OPINION is a ture source. wow get out of here. Synth 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. . It is telling that your original message was far more appropriate, and then you returned here to change it to a far less civil one. And an expert in a field, such as the professor in question here is almost always a good source, and the essay in question was written to an academic standard. Whilst I am backing up my claims ("the source argument"), you appear to be meerly making assumptions with no grounding. Continuing this discussion appears to serve no purpose, as you do not wish to be civil, nor do you wish to examine the evidence, but rather prefer to stick to rhetoric. I shall leave you be, then. LinaMishima 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How about you answer my observations of the "sources" instead of asking me to get a source that counters the argument. Synth 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

        • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychedea (talk • contribs) 06:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to attempt to reconcile your arguments…

Indians and Arabs can be “Black”. “Black” is a social construction; as “Black” has neither continent nor country, anyone who fits the idea of what an African American looks like or even simply has dark skin can be called “Black” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people). “Black” is about physical characteristics. Unique from other races, there is very little boundary between Black and not. “Black” is relative. An Arab may well be “Black”, as one may claim Arab identity on linguistic grounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab). Notice that there are African residents in Saudi Arabia. Clearly one may be simultaneously African and an Arab.

Whether or not Mr. Popo is portrayed as an undereducated African American basketball-playing thug or as a Middle Eastern martial artist is not relevant, as a Black person may well be raised in an environment which fosters such expertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.222.37 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News edit

Edits like this one are completely unacceptable and you should know that by now. JoshuaZ 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threads edit

Ditto this one and this one, for different reasons. It would be good to have summaries there, but don't just put in unreadable garbage. KarlM 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: testtest1

[edit] Regarding edits made during March 17, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Gwern (contribs) 18:29 17 March 2007 (GMT) 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Executive privilege

Rolled back your change - why remove that section title? Please let me know if you disagree. Kaisershatner 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

Is there a particular reason you removed content from Top and bottom in sex and BDSM?--Xnuala (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Anna Nicole Smith. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gobeirne 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your vandalism to George Sutherland

Hi. Your vandalism to this page has been reverted. Your repeated vandalism is somewhat astonishing in its volume. I urge you to stop now. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to African American contemporary issues, you will be blocked from editing.

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. bibliomaniac15 00:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you have reasons to block me, but for racism??? bull****.Synth 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Agustin Aguayo

An editor has nominated Agustin Aguayo, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agustin Aguayo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Erotic_Lactation.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Erotic_Lactation.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure do what you want. Synth 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mens_yukata.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mens_yukata.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vince Foster. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Tlesher 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Live Earth. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cheers, Mystytopia 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wet nurse. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Krsont 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Afro-Latin American, you will be blocked from editing. Krsont 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism there is no black besides the beta israel that pratices judaism.

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to White people, you will be blocked from editing. Krsont 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. SefringleTalk 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by one month. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Daniel Case 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the duration of the block to indefinite after finding more instances of defamatory comments left on image talk pages. You have received far more warning than is usually given, and have been blocked repeatedly for varying offenses. I see no reason to allow you to return. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)