Jump to content

Talk:Masanobu Fukuoka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iyo-farm (talk | contribs) at 15:04, 5 January 2013 (Compress quotations using hidden template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Macropneuma’s return

OK, I am a little apprehensive about Macropneuma’s return to this topic for reasons documented previously on this talk page archive.

An immediate repetition of the whitewashing dispute and FUBAR edits such as [1] do not do much for my confidence.

I've removed "natural philosopher" from the biographical box as natural philosopher has an entirely different meaning in English and some of the bitty, extraneous fritters that do nothing but complicated the article.

  • Is there any chance you can complete your revision of the article in your sandbox and then we discuss it, Jase?

You've got a tendency to be a little obsessive over details that really do not matter and over complicate things, e.g. there is no harm to changing all of the 'ref names' but it really makes no difference to the reader, it is merely for the sake of the code.

I also still argue that Natural Farming should be capitalized as a proper noun to differentiate it from the purely adjectival (and misleading) use of the term "natural".

Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly actual obsessions, for detail falsehoods: (diffs (amongst others)) –fixed, again (B&W references’ quotations on request). ——--macropneuma 08:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The knowledgable reader can see the values from the <ref names="here" …/> and utilize them, including me. ——--macropneuma 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling deliberate, full testing, temporary edits with good faith, no harm and edit summary sense of humour, as "FUBAR edits" just seeks to insult. Don’t be so silly. (diff … diff diff –glad i did –show of flexibility.)——--macropneuma 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 10:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Natural philosopher, deliberately was not wikilinked, so it’s fine there in the InfoBox in its general English language sense for readers and as readers would take it in plain and simple English—fine for everyone, except those biased, trying to minimise his credit. The English language is not restricted to special definitions from Wikipedia. ——--macropneuma 09:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from rhetorical questions for the purpose of dictating, and cease your aggressive, covetous, WP:OWNERSHIP. Attacking me doesn’t take away my responsibility and sense of responsibility for much of this article’s sentences, still unchanged since i wrote them. Don’t be so silly as to attack responsible editors, me, as WP:OWNERSHIP.
Please, different responsible editors, who are my peers or better competence, join this article and better edit it. i wish!—together with me—and have wished so, forever. ——--macropneuma 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly, obviously don’t know what a proper noun is, properly, nor: "Latin natura ‘birth, nature, quality’, from nat- ‘born’, from the verb nasci ." the etymology of the word nature –Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc. (–or is it pretext for an underbelly of a reason of pushing brand name recognition (& PR) and ownership (on the internet &c.)?) ——--macropneuma 10:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 11:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pneumonia identical to depression? ——--macropneuma 12:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a tendency of writing deliberately ignoring words on subjects not known about, which should not be written about at all. ——--macropneuma 13:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Another disgusting attempt in the history of doing a form of neo–colonialist occupation." <–Lastly, not prose. <–Of my agency, the poetic close. ——--macropneuma 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"One more thing" –with the late Steve Jobs. There was actually one very poorly cited reference in there i hadn't noticed before, a genuinely good reference someone (?) added in there, the citation of which i fixed up and provided the link to the online paper for, today; hope it doesn't get "deleted by occupation":
  • Parnwell, Michael J.G. (2005). "The Power to Change: Rebuilding Sustainable Livelihoods in North-East Thailand" (PDF). Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies. 4 (2). UK: Department of East Asian Studies, University of Leeds,: 1–21. ISSN 1602-2297. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |journal-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) ——--macropneuma 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry, I have not got a clue what point/s you are trying to make. Unless it is in simple, clear English, no one can understand what you are saying.
The Parnwell reference, above, is still part of the article (no. 32) and so I don't understand what point you are making there either.
The article is fine as it is and it is hard to see how it is missing much. I'll update it with news of the 100th year anniversary celebration this year, when it happens. --Iyo-farm (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad BS! Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (content guideline), eg. do not randomly, for BS reasons, delete the Parnwell ref also. ——--macropneuma 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fukuoka Masanobu's 100 year anniversary has nought to do with you. The organisers are in email contact with us, told me they're initiating it at the Opera, and we all know about you—Wikipedia:Patent nonsense by anonymous; cannot report news of anything—doesn't even give a name let alone own a newspaper nor own any publications—Wikipedia : Patent nonsense per WP:RS –in this case do not look up the online Australian urban dictionary for "RS" even though it might seem appropriate for it—engaging sense of humour. If you were sorry, rather than facetiously saying so, you'd have contrition. Who pays you? ——--macropneuma 01:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 03:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above username’s return

Not agreed; matters of facts (from reliable sources available on request), silliness, falsehoods thrown at Fukuoka now repeated again (mud slinging), and of undue personal comments. To say the least, disappointed. ——--macropneuma 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm, BTW, in case you haven’t noticed i’m exercising my sense of humour at the silly attack. ——--macropneuma 10:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: diff: Direct quotations in context:

Quote from The One–Straw Revolution

In any event, I was a very busy, very fortunate young man, spending my days in amazement at the world of nature revealed through the eyepiece of the microscope, struck by how similar this minute world was to the great world of the infinite universe. In the evening, either in or out of love, I played around and enjoyed myself. I believe it was this aimless life, coupled with fatigue from overwork, that finally led to fainting spells in the research room. The consequence of all this was that I contracted acute pneumonia and was placed in the pneumothorax treatment room on the top floor of the Police Hospital.


It was winter and through a broken window the wind blew swirls of snow around the room. It was warm beneath the covers, but my face was like ice. The nurse would check my temperature and be gone in an instant.
As it was a private room, people hardly ever looked in. I felt I had been put out in the bitter cold, and suddenly plunged into a world of solitude and loneliness. I found myself face to face with the fear of death. As I think about it now, it seems a useless fear, but at the time, I took it seriously. I was finally released from the hospital, but I could not pull myself out of my depression. In what had I placed my confidence until then? I had been unconcerned and content, but what was the nature of that complacency? I was in an agony of doubt about the nature of life and death. I could not sleep, could not apply myself to my work. In nightly wanderings above the bluff and beside the harbor, I could find no relief.
One night as I wandered, I collapsed in exhaustion on a hill overlooking the harbor, finally dozing against the trunk of a large tree. I lay there, neither asleep nor awake, until dawn. I can still remember that it was the morning of the 15th of May. In a daze I watched the harbor grow light, seeing the sunrise and yet somehow not seeing it. As the breeze blew up from below the bluff, the morning mist suddenly disappeared. Just at that moment a night heron appeared, gave a sharp cry, and flew away into the distance. I could hear the flapping of its wings. In an instant all my doubts and the gloomy mist of my confusion vanished. Everything I had held in firm conviction, everything upon which I had ordinarily relied was swept away with the wind. I felt that I understood just one thing. Without my thinking about them, words came from my mouth: "In this world there is nothing at all. . . ."I felt that I understood nothing.*
…

[Footnote]*To "understand nothing," in this sense, is to recognize the insufficiency of intellectual knowledge.

— Masanobu Fukuoka, The One–Straw Revolution, 1978 Rodale

——--macropneuma 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, different responsible editors, who are my peers or better competence, join this article and better edit it. I wish!—together, with me—and i have wished so, forever. ——--macropneuma 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have been over this 'article of faith' of yours before too.
Unfortunately we only have his own autobiographical report of what ever happened and that really does not pass as a 'reliable source' by Wikipedian standards. It's basically "self-published material" or claim and without qualification from "an established expert on the topic".
If we accept that he did not feel better until after his experience, which is what the quote says, then surely "during" recover. --Iyo-farm (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELFSOURCE (Wikipedia policy). Bad BS! Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (content guideline). ——--macropneuma 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your woolly words (muddled) themself

surely "during" recover

answer the question—don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t use, don’t cite sources. The question always was about the sentence subject of pneumonia from his own writings of the sequence: suffering pneumonia, hospital release w. body’s recovery. Pneumonia identical to depression? ——--macropneuma 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct but see: "1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". I would say that to claim one is "enlightened", or had an "enlightenment experience" without qualified third party ratification is self-serving or an exceptional claim. There is no record of such.
Because of your past record, and because of your style/conduct and obvious personal antagonism towards me, I want to progress step by step and discuss and agree the need for any changes with others beforehand.
Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undue personal comments, inverse, bad BS, "…record…" blah blah blah. Those undue comments, have been since your first mass blanking edits years ago, in 2011 Feb.; having not stopped even until now. Your WP conduct, personal and editing, ongoing ever since your first mass blanking edits years ago disgusts me so much, that i cannot entirely describe. Back to Wikipedia policies &c.. Discuss first?
Pneumonia identical to (non) enlightenment?
[a little refactoring added inline at 04:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC): When i’m talking/writing about pneumonia, i am not talking/writing about depression; apparently and incredibly, you seem to be (writing, conflating pneumonia and depression as identical). When i’m talking/writing about pneumonia, i am not at all talking/writing about the subject of enlightenment; apparently and incredibly, you seem to be (writing, conflating pneumonia and the subject of enlightenment (non– in you) as identical). Simplistic logic: If a person gets struck down to be bed-ridden with h5m1 influenza and at the same time suffers from obsessive compulsive anxiety, medical people do not then invent a conflated together diagnosis (no, not perhaps giving a name to it of influeobsessions (nor pneumodepressounenlightenment). In reality, if they did they would be quickly stripped of any medical practise licences and disbarred.)] Woolly, totally careless, thinking, to such a degree—to say the least.
This is all only about one user’s personal make–believe, interpretations, opinions, sans any sources WP:RS. You’re wrong, in WP, much more so than me and even more than i am right/perfect. No-one’s perfect. Imperfections are of course not condemnable, not assailable. Intentional bad conduct is, due, for censure. ——--macropneuma 06:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 06:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 06:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 07:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 04:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Can I remind you both of Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

I know the two of you don't get along but can you please just talk about the article and not insult each other or question editor motives.--Salix (talk): 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, Salix. For me, this is not a personal issue it is about what goes out there into the real world. I do not consider I am making any "personal attacks".(1) Macropneuma has an extremely idiosyncratic editing and communication style which is hardly comprehensible.(2) It places an unfair burden onto other editors. Half the time I have not a clue in the world what he is trying to say. I do not believe others do, and I do not consider that anyone should have to makes attempt to decipher it.
If one cannot communicate in simple, plain English, then one probably does not belong in a project creating an encyclopaedia for general readership.(3)
If it carries on, I am thinking of referring his conduct to something like a WP:RFC, e.g. User conduct to get a second opinion.(4)
In the meanwhile, I think it would be best if he carried on development of a parallel topic in a personal sandbox.(5)
I have to put my foot down and say any development should be agreed in advance first, and I don't see much or any important development in his latest salvo.(6) --Iyo-farm (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say the least, there’s no truth in the hate speech thrown at me together with pre-emptive denial and dictating, above (again) at 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC). Not safe to work with. Not dignifying it. Of course, i don’t take silly, patent nonsense, personal attacks; i’m not shy of standing up with evidence and i do not start cycles of personal attacks. Who’s behind this? ——--macropneuma 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, I refuse to be drawn into personal attacks nowadays, thanks, so repeating again: Wikipedia:No personal attacks anywhere and emphatically, adding the reference to the plain policy: Wikipedia:Don't lie. ——--macropneuma 16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (clarified) ——--macropneuma 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored some of Iyo-farm comments which macropneuma, claims as a personal attack. I've marked these as (1)-(6). It looks to me that macropneuma is not willing to try to resolve the dispute or understanding that he may be in error. There is a problem with your sentence structure and grammar which looks to me like your not a native English speaker, if that is so we can try to accommodate that. But you need to try harder to write so other can understand what your saying. --Salix (talk): 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the single indenting i was referring to your talk on the subject of Wikipedia:No personal attacks in what i wrote above "I refuse to be drawn into personal attacks nowadays" (clarified above now). This must not to be brutally misconstrued. In reality, my own native English language has for decades been rated, as native, as professional (officially, see the following), as having a sense of humour, as not taking myself too seriously and as just fine for communication purposes, but not pretending to perfection nor word perfect. Straight talking free speech by a free man! Thanks are due to those who care for me and who do not hate, including, officially, those people in one of my past jobs, in an agency of the Federal Government of Australia. ——--macropneuma 23:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 23:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The written word is different discipline. Here's some good advice on the matter, plainlanguage.gov.
To paraphrase Jonathan Culler, words are just signs or representations and but a way to get at reality, truth, or ideas. They should be as transparent as possible not get in the way, nor affect or infect the thought or truth they represent. --Iyo-farm (talk)
More WP:BAIT. I don't need, links from demonstrably lesser writers to, advice. I’ve always had far better writing guides than that. Risibly ridiculous personal attacks not based on anything. Deliberate ignorance as a form of personal attacks. It's my writing, much better than, which still makes up many of the sentences of the article. Not part of my life! False attacking of my writing from jealousy by a British English speaker? Different discipline from what? Over two decades of professional working life, i have been professionally writing constantly in job roles based in offices, totalling more than 10 years of full time. These have been in a few corporations and the majority of time somewhere in all levels of Australian Governments, including an agency of the Federal Government, Canberra. At various other times of the last two decades, some breadth of life experience and diversity of work and life styles, including professional outdoor job roles of field botanical survey, ecological restoration, endangered plants' propagation work in specialist nurseries, GPS data capture, etc., and my nature farm, home base. No cited sources, again; as have been absent most of the time, since 2011 Feb. when arrived, then immediately, intentionally–ignorantly attacked. Attempting to make me lose my self esteem in my own long English writing experience? You failed. Pulling wild speculations out of thin air making them into false personal attacks. ——--macropneuma 14:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 04:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvements

Macropneuma is unwilling to go the sandbox route, so please allow me to start a new section for 'suggested improvements' of the topic. If anyone knows of a better way to lay out such a discussion, please reformat as required.

I'll go through the topic and unpick proposed changes as time allows. If Macropneuma would list his suggestions and justifications here, I would appreciate it.

As a rule, for me, "less is more". I am unconvinced the topic benefits from much of the visual clutter and 'micro-detailing' Macropneuma is seeking to add, but others might disagree with me. Likewise, this is an English language Wiki and so I do not understand the need for extensive Japanese language documentation. Presumably if anyone has that serious an interest they will learn the language and go to the primary sources but it strikes me that, according to policy, English language sources are sufficient. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss.

"Natural philosopher" etc in the biographical box

Oppose. The reason being is that the correct definition of natural philosophy is what most people now call physics. Fukuoka was not that and so it appears to be a neologism. No references to support. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sources cited? ——--macropneuma 14:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Wanting to be an authority figurehead, without having to provide sources. ——--macropneuma 14:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition of natural philosophy
{{{2}}}
Support – logically, based on scholarly sources, including his own, about himself. ——--macropneuma 15:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 15:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


See, WP:NOENG. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones ...".
I think you are exaggerating with your use of "scholarly" (and his own opinion on himself would not be a reliable source). Apart from the very few specific scientific papers we know about, in which philosophical journals was he published?
Of course one can accept Fukuoka was an agricultural scientist and a popular author, and that he had an opinion on many subjects. Unfortunately, it cannot be said he really made much of an impact onto mainstream/academic philosophical world, nor is he highly regarded by it. Indeed, I would say he is almost unknown by it (for philosophy).
Perhaps this is, as you suggest, this is due to ethnocentrism; perhaps it was because he was unschooled in this area; perhaps it is also just too soon to judge; but one thing for sure he was not a physicist, as natural philosophy is physics.
What you might be seeking to assert is that he was a "philosopher of nature", which is different, but I think the problem is that in your devotion to him as a guru figure you are trying to raise him to unreasonable or unencyclopaediac heights. I think it is better to keep things down to earth and "author" is good enough. --Iyo-farm (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plain factually wrong in every point. Plain filibustering and WP:BAIT.
Misused WP policy WP:NOENG deliberately ignoring the rest of the policy’s words,
eg. English sources are not of "equal quality and relevance" to the very many Japanese sources available; and:
"Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.", etc.. In addition, you've previously since 2011 Feb., obviously been mis-using machine translations.
Plainly, random personal opinions and conduct thrown at me for stone-walling. In addition trivially and randomly, above you've mis-used italics for a quotation which already is within quotation marks.
"English sources preferred" (obviously) – identical with the attitude of?: English language sources bigotry (breaching WP policies)–?? Pfft.
His scholarly published works and 3rd party scholars’ works about them, obviously, deliberately ignoring. Obviously, deliberately ignoring, denying hearing and erasing from knowledge this whole body of literature, which the world of true scholars well knows about, for, instead, personal point of view hatred speeches, about his philosophies. Again, pushing personal hatred of his philosophies—admitted elsewhere, sources available online—by factually wrong points about his notability in Japanese philosophy.
(Together with mis-leading points, that are not part in WP policies, about Japanese philosophy. As if it is only that written of the non-notable, academic, banal, kind, by persons only known within academia. As if that is mainstream, when that is not mainstream, by the public majority, by encyclopaedias terms, by WPs policies or by 3rd party works’ terms. Wikipedia policies tell us that that only known in academia, without any body of publications, isn’t notable, and to not include it.) –fudging, fudging, every which way; –desperate scrambling and random flailing about for ways of filibustering, –clutching at straws for stone–walling. False personal hate speeches, calling his works merely popular, non-notable or non–mainstream (and calling me "exaggerating", about matters being deliberately ignored). Deliberately ignoring of and plainly not to properly research Japanese sources; –remove your (WP:POV) opinions about these many sources, as opinions based in intentional ignorance.
Factually wrong calling natural philosophy, natural sciences, physical sciences identical to merely physics. Obviously, ignorance pulled out of thin air. ——--macropneuma 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conflating the present day usage of the word physics with the word physis? –the etymology of the word physical used for all physical sciences (from the Greek original word: physis –for all nature; "Latin natura ‘birth, nature, quality’, from nat- ‘born’, from the verb nasci ." the etymology of the word nature –Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.). Saying biology included as a part of metaphysics? pfft.
" Over the last two millennia, physics", "chemistry, certain branches of mathematics, and biology" were parts "of natural philosophy", but have each developed as separate natural sciences in their own rights, from the umbrella of natural philosophy, since the 17th CE scientific revolution. ——--macropneuma 07:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOENG: "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" –my emphasis of one word, added in italics. ——--macropneuma 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article {{dead link}} – elementary article faults – the article has many dead links in the references notes citations. Please fix the links. I'll tag the dead links, as already did, as was reverted in breach of WP policies. ——--macropneuma 15:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the links then and avoid introducing unnecessary cruft into the topic.
If the book, journal is referenced, that is all that is required. There is no obligation to have a URL as long as the hardcopy is available WP:CITE. --Iyo-farm (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You fix your dead links by updating them, they’re of many kinds, not all deletable. i’m not your servant or your slave or your fool and i do not take dictation from anyone, let alone hate speakers, engaged in filibustering. ——--macropneuma 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
→ For fixing there are now four {{dead link}}s in the References section. ——--macropneuma 09:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize template

Oppose. No need for more cruft. --Iyo-farm (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self published books and multiple ISBN

I don't think a general Wikipedia topic needs to include every work by an author, especially self-published ones and multiple editions of the same book.

I suggest proper templates are used for book and journals. ---Iyo-farm (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent bad faith edits

I am sorry but I have to consider a number of the most recent revision to be quite deliberate bad faith edits [2] on behalf of Macropneuma.

Direct copies of

For example,

  • Why replace a 'cite journal' template with a 'cite book' template when the publication is clear a journal?
  • Why state "discussion is concluded" whilst discussion is still on going?
  • Why replace "natural philosopher" whilst is is clearly disputed and discussion on going?
  • Why continue to add cruft when you have been asked not to?

and if we look at minor details,

  • Why bother entitling something a documentary when it is clearly in the documentary section?
  • Why add a note saying there is "no ISBN number"?
  • Why keep removing the photograph of his land?

I am sorry but, no. Stop reverting. Please discuss your intentions beforehand and justify them.

You don't have a right to waste other people's time in this manner.

Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Wikipedia - Don't lie. All false accusations and falsehoods, by above username. WP:BAIT.
Correcting again now, back to the corrections already made to mistaken edits earlier made by above username, for no reasons, having ignored the content of the citations and sources, statements and citations they edited were based upon, and obviously ignoring the Japanese sources’ pages.
My edits are good faith edits per WP policies WP:3RR, Wikipedia – Don't lie: "Just don’t"; thus this was further breaching WP:Assume good faith. eg. diff
If bothered to read the Japanese sources instead of deliberately ignoring the sources in editing, then would know that they are chapters of book series monographs. They have ISBNs not ISSNs, Duh!
Don’t deliberately ignorantly revert what obviously is not knowledge held.
Drop the sarcasm and falsity. If sorry then they would have contrition.
No right to have wasted so much of my time and falsely personally attacked me since 2011 Feb. ——--macropneuma 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 14:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2011 Feb. a long standing need to change your username, so it is not a falsity (Admins, see the article's edits history.) ——--macropneuma 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff← edit summaries provide clear reasons why the mis-leading, mis-representative, emotive (for pressure on the family?) photograph has been removed many times by editors. ——--macropneuma 13:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——-macropneuma 14:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By way of explanation for the long term abuse that has gone on. I have let myself be vulnerable to it for some time. In 2011 Feb and for some time afterwards, as i was focused on content edits i didn't familiarise myself with the dynamics users use with edit warring. I was naive thinking that users would come around to using reliable sources if given encouragement enough. This has not happened and much worse has happened. I've since been forced to become familiar with these dynamics of edits warriors and have stopped playing into their hands. ——--macropneuma 14:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 14:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masanobu_Fukuoka&oldid=531455319"