User talk:Gmatsuda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive

Talk Page Archive

Archive 1 - 06/30/07
Archive 2 - 08/27/08

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
To Gmatsuda for significant expansion of Manzanar. This editor took an expanded stub and made substantial additions of content, prose, and references. Keep up the good work! Ishu 11:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Manzanar" is now a credit to the encyclopedia due to your efforts. Thanks for contributing to the project. -Will Beback · · 09:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just wow... You did some great work expanding the poor start class article Manzanar I started so long ago (mostly based on what a National Park service employee told my field study group - turns out he got some of the facts wrong). I'm busy now, but I look forward to reading what you've done in detail and comment on any outstanding issues you may be working through. --mav 17:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

While many hands participated, it was primarily your hard work, diligence, and scholarship that resulted in the promotion of Manzanar to Feature Article status. I'm glad to see that those efforts have finally been recognized. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya did good. I'm proud to have a slight hand in your featured article. And thanks for the Barnstar. It's my first, and I'll cherish it. --Milkbreath 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

BoNM - Los Angeles2.PNG The Los Angeles Barnstar of Merit
I, Taifarious1, hereby award you the Los Angeles Barnstar of Merit for your extensive and comprehensive work on the Manzanar article, no doubt single-handedly gaining its featured status, and to a lesser extent, the Los Angeles Kings article. I have reviewed the history of both articles and have seen that you have made significant contributions to both, thus making you the first winner of this award. Well done, (♠Taifarious1♠) 08:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm honored. Don't know what to say other than thank you. I look forward to continuing my work on the LA Kings article, which I intend to (eventually) get up to FA status. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW: No, I cannot claim exclusive credit for getting Manzanar up to FA status. I may have been the primary contributor, but others were involved and deserve credit (and they know who they are, so I won't list them here). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar[edit]

Manzanar is a FABULOUS article. I just wanted to take a second to thank you for your wonderful work on it. I would like to see the 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States) article become as strong and well-written as is Manzanar. I will try to come back to it and help, but would be happy to work with you on it, if you like. --Kukini háblame aquí 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could contribute more to the 100th/442nd article, but I'm a freelance writer, in addition to my day job, and I have little time these days to contribute more than constructive criticism and quick fixes. I can help with suggestions, but beyond that, I doubt I'll have much time to contribute. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Gmatsuda's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Gmatsuda has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gmatsuda's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Gmatsuda!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...and after I was blocked for being an idiot? :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting content from one's own talk page[edit]

Hi, Gmatsuda. I saw your recent admonitions to User:Shyguy1991 about content removal from that user's Talk page. In fact, although it can be perceived as rude (I often take it that way myself), deleting messages from one's own talk page is not prohibited. There are a few exceptions, listed at WP:BLANKING, but none of what you restored to Shyguy's page seems to fall into those categories. Perhaps you'd like to revert your last couple of edits over there? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also an essay about this. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...wonder why I had been hearing otherwise? I'll fix it... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe just because some things aren't to be deleted. Or else because our intuition tells us it shouldn't be allowed to delete stuff. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Gmatsuda! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

About your recent addition to the Manzanar article[edit]

I removed the comment you recently added to the Manzanar article. It seems to me that such a statement should be sourced. If it is you own observation then please read WP:OR. Since this is not the first time this statement has been removed, perhaps you could discuss the situation on the articles discussion page if you intend to revert my edit. –droll [chat] 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Check the article's talk page. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

About your recent request for me to rescind the addition of Tura Satana's connection to Manzanar[edit]

You wrote on my page: I respectfully ask you to re-consider the addition you recently made to Manzanar. The person you added to the Notable Prisoners section may or may not be notable, but if you notice, the person doesn't really fit with the rest of the people mentioned. Also, that article isn't meant to mention EVERYONE who may be notable who was imprisoned there. I won't revert your edit, but ask that you do so yourself. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First, my apologies for not getting to this sooner. I haven't logged in since that edit. Where might it be better to place the article on Satana? Should we create a section of historically and culturally notable people who survived the camp but didn't immediately (to our knowledge) resist being placed there or document something while there? Or are you arguing that her inclusion is inappropriate in and of itself? I assumed she fit in with other cultural figures who were imprisoned at the camp, and I'm unsure why we would try to erase persons who were imprisoned there. I think it is logical to argue that either two sections could be created - one focused on the civil rights and documentary effort to resist internment - and another focused on some of the notable people who were imprisoned there (for any historically or culturally significant reason) - or we could simply expand the section that mentions notable prisoners. Also, if there is language or wording you dislike in the Satana bit, i'd be happy to revise it with you.

I know you care very deeply for this article, and I see the logic of what you are proposing and in some ways share your interest in focusing on the directly political rather than the more broadly cultural or potentially trivial. I just think that the experience of being interned in the United States is self-evidently a dramatic act that would likely relate to the work of people after they were released, and I am suspect of overly narrow curatorial impulses or definitions of resistance or community. For example, when we revised the Seminole tribe Wikipedia page, we didn't just focus on notable chiefs or attorneys who fought US colonialism; we also focused on filmmakers and poets, many of whose works are not at all related to anti-colonialism in the conventional sense. But I actually think this broader human brush more deeply focuses the article reader into considering the effects and bizarre twists of history. Is it relevant, for example, that the voice of Darth Vader is a Cherokee citizen, to either 'category'? I don't know, but I do know that having that information is better than not having it.

Thanks for your help and collaborative spirit! I'll try to check back on wikipedia sometime later this month and try not to leave this interesting consideration hanging. Thank you very much for contacting me, and thank you for your hard work on this article. It is a beautiful piece so far, and i hope that we can find a way to keep that going in a way that best records and honors the people sent there and the broader dynamics at play, both then, and afterwards. Cheers! --Tolfoster (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the idea was simply to keep the number of notable prisoners from getting unwieldy. It really shouldn't list EVERYONE who might be notable who was imprisoned there. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, given the mission of this project in focusing on culturally or historically notable people. If you want to move the entry to a new section of other inmates who were culturally or historically notable but did nothing in that vein while at the camp itself, I would be supportive.--Tolfoster (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But that wouldn't address the issue of the article listing anyone and everyone who might be notable. This article isn't about that, nor should it be. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese American internment[edit]

I read the talk page before I made the edit. Although "internment" may be inaccurate, "Japanese American internment" is still in common usage, hence the name of the article "Japanese American internment." Theres no reason to alter the name of the template because of something like this, especially when it is consistent with the main article's title. It is also consistent with the German American internment and the Italian American internment articles. Thank you--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Move category?[edit]

I noticed that you've pointed out current style is to omit hyphens - would it be advisable to undertake a move of Category:Japanese-American internment to a Category:Japanese American internment? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be apprpriate. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

NHL players on injured reserve[edit]

I have seen that you have said that players on IR are non-roster players. That is not true. They are on the NHL team's roster, but not the active roster. They should not be removed or hidden, but have the injured parameter added. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you could point me to where I said that I'd appreciate it. If you're referring to the template's talk page, that's not what I said. Three years ago, when that comment was posted on the template's talk page, the question was whether to keep a player who was on IR on the template. At the time, the red "+" wasn't being used, if I recall correctly.
This was never a question about the status of players on IR. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand now. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminology section[edit]

I see that you've copied the Terminology section from the Manzanar article to the Minidoka National Historic Site article. Since this section is applicable to all relocation camp articles, a better solution would be for you to transcribe the text at the Japanese American internment article and insert a hatnote referring to it in the relocation camp articles, inside a condensed terminology subsection. There's no need to copy the full section to each of the camp articles. — Myasuda (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be great if the JA Internment article wasn't ravaged by revisionists so often. That's why I added it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen such activity at Japanese American internment in a long time (aside from obvious vandalism that is readily reverted) . . . why not give it a shot? I would be surprised if you had any pushback. — Myasuda (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Given that article's history, I'd rather just leave well enough alone. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well -- that's certainly your prerogative. Since the section you added to the Minidoka article is a general commentary on internment terminology and not specific to Minidoka, I'll proceed to move it to a subsection at the end of the Minidoka War Relocation Center section and just leave a condensed summary without all the extra detail (which would be appropriate for the Japanese American internment article, but not here). The hatnote will help guide anyone interested in further details. — Myasuda (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Given the reputation of the JA Internment article, I believe that the terminology section that I added should be left intact. I also disagree that it goes beyond the scope of the article. After all, Minidoka was one of the camps subject to the terminology question. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you have some unfounded fear of the Japanese American internment article or some of its former editors. Please show me some pernicious activity in that article over the past three years that makes you so reluctant to even try to add or modify content there. Your terminology section would be perfectly appropriate in that article. However, since the terminology section you inserted in the Minidoka article was written generically (it could pertain to any one of the camps), to simply reproduce it in multiple articles is wasteful (hatnotes were created for a reason). Furthermore, it detracts from the focus on Minidoka, which is why people are reading the Minidoka article in the first place. The pruned down section on terminology with the hatnote is sufficient to alert readers of the controversy and point them to where they can read further details, if they're interested. — Myasuda (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I know it would be better in JA Internment. I"ve just had so many bad experiences with that article, I avoid it. Independent of that, I disagree that it detracts from the Minidoka article, or any of the other camp-specific articles, including Manzanar, which is a featured article that has long included that section. I also disagree with your claim that it is beyond the scope of these articles. After all, this terminology is directly connected to these camps. It isn't possible for the terminology to be outside the scope. I urge you to revert the article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This is also about what's best for educating readers about the Japanese American Incarceration experience. It certainly doesn't hurt to have that section duplicated, and again, there is a history of revisionism in the main article. This doesn't have to be strictly a Wikipedia guidelines issue. After all, the articles in question, other than Manzanar, aren't even close to becoming featured articles (and I'm not saying that as the primary contributor to the Manzanar article). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
You had your general terminology section front and center following the lede in the Minidoka article, which would only serve to confuse the reader looking for information on Minidoka itself. What people actually call the camp is a secondary (if even that) issue to what it actually was and what happened there. What I left in the article is more than adequate. Since you evidently disagree with this, I suggest we either take the discussion to the Japanese American internment article talk page or you can set up an RFC to get other editors to chime in. — Myasuda (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Not worth the time and trouble. The terminology section is placed early in the Manzanar article because unless you understand the issue, you read the entire article without having the necessary understanding of the debate over the terminology. That makes no sense. But do what you want. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you insist on doing it your way, I recommend using what I wrote and adding it to the JA Internment article, which does not have sufficient information regarding terminology (that's part of the constant watering down that I got sick of). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you weren't interested in doing it, I added the expanded terminology section to the JA Internment article. Let's see how long it stays up before it gets chopped to pieces... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Crystal City[edit]

Please do not use subjective material in articles. Wikipedia is neither for nor against the internment of Japanese (or anybody else) during World War II. The contents of articles, including subtitles, should reflect our neutrality and objective reporting. If the material is objectively reported, readers will trust the material. With inflammatory subtitles, they may doubt our objectivity. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please spare me the lecture. As for "life behind barbed wire" being inflammatory, please enlighten me: who would be "inflamed" by that? As I said over on the Crystal City talk page, there was barbed wire. People were unjustly incarcerated within said barbed wire. Facts are facts. That's not subjective. That's a fact. How can use of a fact by POV, in this case? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Asian-American studies move[edit]

Can you explain why? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dates back to the 1970's. Adding the hyphen implies a division, as if (insert ethnic group here) is not just "American." There is no division, which means that there should be none indicated. This has been adopted by Ethnic Studies for many years. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Colin Fraser being placed on waivers[edit]

How should I know if he gets removed from the Kings roster and update the roster template? I must have been thinking of the NFL and NBA where placing players on waivers removes them from teams' rosters. 173.51.123.97 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

NHL teams announce when a player is assigned to minor league team, is placed on injured reserve, or is traded. Those actions would remove a player from their active roster. Waivers doesn't do that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Anze Kopitar[edit]

Slovenia did not win any championships in 2007.. Why you reverted it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.108.149 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The article indicates that Slovenia won the Group B championship in 2007, which they did. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

La Kings Stanley Cup Champions 2014-2015[edit]

The la Kings won the Stanley Cup in 2014-2015 against the Penguins in Game 6. Why change it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleb702 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, you're some kind of moron... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)