User talk:75.70.142.23

Criticism of Monarchy

Thanks for your contribution to the above article. Unfortunately I've had to remove it as it was unreferenced and read more as a personal rant against the idea of monarchy rather than a considered summary of critical comments made in reliable third party publications. Please see our policy on original research for more information on this. Thank you, and happy editing. WaggersTALK 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Paris syndrome. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Auric talk 12:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm I am One of Many. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Racial hygiene seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I am One of Many (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Racial policy of Nazi Germany, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Sonderweg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Henry L. Stimson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you think Doug Long is an acceptable source, you must justify it on the article talk page. If other editors agree, then it can be added. But no NOT add it again. Your IP address will be blocked if you add any more disruptive material to any article page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Note, I did post a request that you be blocked for vandalism. And I removed that request because you did open talk page discussions. Be advised that I shall re-report you if you seek to restore the removed material. You must achieve WP:CONSENSUS in order to keep it. Thanks for participating on the talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Be advised, I have reported you for erasing portions of 64.134.24.94's comments. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That was me. I removed my comment. Just chill out. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please do not add religion, ethnic, or descent categories or information to biography articles without first ensuring that 1) the category is supported by reliably sourced article content and 2) the individual identifies as such. Please see WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS for additional information.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Japanese archipelago. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Japanese archipelago, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Tbhotch. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Honshu. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Stop abusing the unsourced templates. State your reason. Specify the line and we can go from there. You are vandalizing the articles with random unsourced templates. This is disruptive. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance templates are used to let other editors know that improvements need to be made. Using these templates is not vandalism. Please do not assume that the templates distract from the article's appearance and therefore must demonstrate ill intent. It's quite the opposite. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is vandalism or disruptive. Unsourced template make the article look ugly and not legitimate. You have to be reasonable about the use of unsourced templates. Those things are mostly used for larger political and controversial articles. Question every single sentence on wikipedia will not go far. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese archipelago

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Japanese archipelago. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Do you have evidence I "hate" Japan, or is simple defamation? Also I'm not an admin, so please revoke my "admin rights". Per this I should have taken you to admins since the beginning as you are not here to contribute constructively. As apparently you need to be guided where an article with unsourced statements elsewhere I tagged every single unsourced statement the article has, with which you can now see the obvious. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if you don't hate Japan you wouldn't question all the sentences in simple articles. This is not political article. This is common sense. Stop impulsively adding unsourced templates. That is my point. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then it is defamation because if I hated Japan I wouldn't be watching or editing Japan-releated articles in the first place, or even worse, I would have created multiple accounts to vandalize Japan and releated (see WP:NOTVAND if you have doubts what vandalism is). Also, I tag articles to *any* kind of page regardless the content, in case you didn't know, when you click "edit" the message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This is a Wikipedia principle, it doesn't matter if the articles are about "political" articles, they still being property of Wikimedia Inc., and therefore, they should be referenced regardless if the fact is simple or common knowledge. Also, WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't apply as these "facts" are maybe known for people who lives in Japan or people who knows about Japan culture, but what about those who doesn't know this "common sense"? They should be excluded?

In first place I didn't tag the articles for poorly sourced statements, these tags were already there before I watched them, but you apparently cannot understand these templates are not removed if the whole problem is not solved. You added just one reference to both article--to simply "verify" Honshu and the Japanese archipelago are in Japan, do you think that solves every other unsourced fact like "[Honshu is] slightly larger than the American state of Minnesota."? Of course not--Just read the featured article of the day, Hiram Wesley Evans, to see how every statement in the page should have at least one reference. I really hate to overtag articles but as you asked "which parts of the article needs references"--when there are two unsourced section in Honshu ("the obvious") I had to add the citation needed elsewhere thanks to your request. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your edit on Honshu, specificaly about relation to Minnesota. That needs source, but even that can be deduced by a simple individual by looking at the size of Minnesota and Japan and calculating it him/herself. My point is this total abuse of unsourced templates on Asian and Japanese articles. Many European articles don't have many unsourced templates. Also are you really saying that this sentence "The nation's main island, it is south of Hokkaido across the Tsugaru Strait,[citation needed] north of Shikoku across the Inland Sea,[citation needed] and northeast of Kyushu across the Kanmon Strait.[citation needed]" needs a source? You can easily click those links and figure out their positions relative Japan. Does all of these sentences really need individual sources to be a valid article. Why don't you delete these sentences if these are unsourced? Would that solve your problem? Are you really that anal about source. If someone says "Sky is blue." Do you really need source for that statement? and tag the article as unsourced? Commonsense needs to work here. If someone says Japan is next to Antartica, that might need source. Do you need source for my statement "Japan is in East Asia?" - "Japan is a country." - "Capital of Japan is Tokyo" Do you need 4 sources for these 4 statements? 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So according to you, as a reader, I have to verify what Wikipedia is giving me to read? I am a reader not a researcher, why I am supposed to go article by article verifiyng if the information is correct or not (and wait the information in that article is sourced). Wikipedia is not, has never, and never will be a reliable reference, even we have an article about this: Reliablility of Wikipedia. If European articles are unsourced, tag them or source them. There are over 4 million articles and many of them (if not most) need references. If Asian articles have more tags than Western World articles would be an interesting issue to resolve, but there aren't studies about this. Also I was about to post the upcoming text above, but I better post it here:

"If these templates were "vandalism" (you are proving you have no idea what vandalism is and it is not) they wouldn't exist in the first place, because I never created {{unsourced}}, did I? Also, where is the evidence the templates are used in "political and controversial" articles alone? The fact you have see them in these pages does not mean they are exclusively for these pages, just visit any of the more than 200,000 pages with this tag. Anyway, if you believe the template(s) mustn't exist, read the instructions at WP:TFD for request their respective deletion." Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Answer this question if you will. "Japan is a country in Asia." <-- does this need source? 2. "Japan is an island nation." <-- does this need source? "Sky is blue." <-- does this need source? Or else leave the article alone. Edits will happen, changes will happen. Assume good faith. If someone removes unsourced template and gives some reason, assume it is. I also can be anal about every single sentence on an article that I don't like. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and 2+2 are 4, you are using the same (absurd) arguments people who believe Wikipedia should have unsourced facts or their editing is based upon "other pages are unsourced, I didn't do something wrong". Japan is a country? Yes, but also it means many other things. Yes, the sky is WP:BLUE, but please tell me, is it always blue? Also you are the typical AGF asker: you ask me to AGF on you, but you can't AGF on me--didn't you call me "vandal" and warned me for ""remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia"? Be coherent please. Per Wikipedia policies, not that I am inventing stuff, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Everybody can verify Japan is an island country whose sky is blue, but everybody can verify that Honshu population was 103 million in 2005, 98,352,000 in 1990 or 89,101,702 in 1995? According to your findings this statements are similar to "the sky is blue". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 09:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you need a source for this statement that "Earth is round." or "United States is a country" or "Water is liquid." Do you need a source for the statement that "one plus one is two."? If not, some common sense sentences shouldn't need a source. I'm just checking and following your logic of thinking. By your standard about 99.99% Wikipedia articles need sources and every single sentence should be sourced. It is an interesting way to think about Wikipedia. My suggestion is don't be so anal about sources. Some articles are sourced and others are not. Use your common sense and judgment. I personally don't need sources for the statement "Sky is blue" or "Japan is a country" because it is soooooooooo obvious. I also don't need a source for this statement that Sea of Japan is to the west of Japan. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)