User talk:Gmatsuda

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

This is Gmatsuda's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Barnstar

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congratulations

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Barnstar

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Manzanar

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy Gmatsuda's Day!

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)[reply]

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. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleting content from one's own talk page

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)[reply]

There's also an essay about this. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...wonder why I had been hearing otherwise? I'll fix it... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

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)[reply]

About your recent addition to the Manzanar article

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Japanese American internment

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)[reply]

Move category?

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)[reply]

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

NHL players on injured reserve

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I understand now. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given that article's history, I'd rather just leave well enough alone. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Crystal City

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Asian-American studies move

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

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)[reply]

Colin Fraser being placed on waivers

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anze Kopitar

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)[reply]

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

Defence vs. defense

Since the word "defense" isn't actually displayed in the link in question, shouldn't it just link directly to the article instead of using the redirect? --Kevin W. - Talk 09:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it should link to the article on defensemen. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is spelled with a c, in this case. --Kevin W. - Talk 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that should be fixed for issues like this. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-American Internment edit-a-thon

Hi there, you may be interested in an edit-a-thon we're doing with the Smithsonian with a focus on Japanese American Internment and Hearth Mountain Relocation Center. Please feel free to suggest interesting articles/improvements here, thanks! -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anže Kopitar

Hey, just to get information why my edit was reverted (twice).

1) I sorted the infobox and used his actual height/weight according to the IIHF document from the 2015 WC (the latest).

2) I fixed some links (NHL = National Hockey League, Center = Centre) So no disambiguation.

3) The country is not linked in the lead section, so removed it.

4) Removed his "medals" as Division I tournament wins are not winning medals as you are "just" the 11th placed team or whatever, never saw them added here and rightfully so.

So, what was the problem with the edit? I will wait a bit before eventually reverting again or putting this up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hockey. Kante4 (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...I think I hit the revert button by mistake this time.. I only meant to revert his weight. He's an NHL player, primarily, so official NHL sources should be relied upon for that information. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i can live with that. I will make a revert with his actual weight edited by you. ;) Kante4 (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LA Kings July 12–13

Hi,

Can you justify your revert reason – RV: use of &ndash was correct before. (TW)? You state it was correct, I inserted the same dash, but without &ndash. And if it was correct then, for example, Season-by-season record section would have &ndash code in every season of this table, but it doesn't (2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14). So how can it be correct?

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; background:#ddd;"
|Season || GP || W || L || OTL || Pts || GF || GA || Finish || Playoffs
|- style="background:#eee;"
| |[[2010–11 NHL season|2010–11]] || 82 || 46 || 30 || 6 || 98 || 219 || 198 || 4th, Pacific || Lost in Conference Quarterfinals, 2–4 ([[San Jose Sharks|Sharks]])
|- style="font-weight:bold" 
| |[[2011–12 NHL season|2011–12]] || 82 || 40 || 27 || 15 || 95 || 194 || 179 || 3rd, Pacific || [[2012 Stanley Cup Finals|Stanley Cup Champions]], 4–2 ([[New Jersey Devils|Devils]])
|- style="background:#eee;"
| |[[2012–13 NHL season||2012–13]] || 48 || 27 || 16 || 5 || 59 || 133 || 118 || 2nd, Pacific || Lost in Conference Finals, 1–4 ([[Chicago Blackhawks|Blackhawks]])
|- style="font-weight:bold" 
| |[[2013–14 NHL season|2013–14]] || 82 || 46 || 28 || 8 || 100 || 206 || 174 || 3rd, Pacific || [[2014 Stanley Cup Finals|Stanley Cup Champions]], 4&ndash;1 ([[New York Rangers|Rangers]])
|- style="background:#eee;"
| |[[2014-15 NHL season|2014&ndash;15]] || 82 || 40 || 27 || 15 || 95 || 220 || 205 || 4th, Pacific || Did not qualify
|}

I'll be waiting. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the HTML code is the wise move, especially since it's hard to tell if it's actually an endash when you're editing an article. For more, see WP:MOS. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why other seasons in this table don't have the –? Every other dash in the article should use – instead of –, but it's the other way around. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has added them. If I had the time, I would. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Brown picture

What is the issue with the picture of Dustin Brown which I have been posting? You can clearly see that it is him. It accurately depicts his number and his captaincy unlike the previous one used. To claim it as vandalism is outright slandering my person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your intent was noble, rather than to demean the player in question, you'd have a point. Nice try, though. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation in English

Re: your edit comment that "ethnic designations should never be hyphenated". This is neither true in English generally nor is it sanctioned at Wikipedia. Note the WP:HYPHEN #3 guideline which states that English compounds are often hyphenated when used attributively (e.g. African-American history, African-American studies) but not when used predicatively (e.g. African Americans, Stereotypes of African Americans). This is normal practice with terms containing two geographical modifiers (e.g. European American) that have their own independent meanings. Both uses can be sen in the following passage from the European Americans article:

Much of the European-American cultural lineage can be traced back to Western and Northern Europe, which is institutionalized in the government, traditions, and civic education in the United States. Since most later European Americans have assimilated into American culture, most European Americans now generally express their individual ethnic ties sporadically...

Thanks. — AjaxSmack 19:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. That said, hyphenating ethnic designations implies a separation...that such people are not 100% American. There is much in scholarly works regarding this. If this is Wikipedia policy, it is rather arcane and should be changed -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind NPOV

Please try to keep a neutral point of view. You clearly have strong feelings about Executive Order 9066 and its progeny, but calling them "concentration camps" in the lead of an article about the Executive Order itself (which in fact only gave the power to create the camps, not ordering them to be created) is not a neutral point of view. Internment is not a euphemism. It's very clear that it means the imprisonment of people for no reason. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is NPOV. All cited by scholars. Bad edit on your part. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire history on WP is regarding Japanese internment. I think you may want to re-read the NPOV guidelines. I don't see you making many edits to the Rape of Nan King article either. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That fact that you mention the Rape of Nanking indicates that you don't distinguish between the Empire of Japan during World War II and its military and Americans of Japanese ancestry. That makes your edits and point of view and motivations highly suspect. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's saying you are trying to push your POV re Japanese internment so hard that you are ignoring the fact that other atrocities occurred during WWII. Anyway, your POV and self-citing is dangerous, I hereby wash my hands of you, goodbye. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* If this article was about other atrocities, you might have a point. Again, it's clear that you fail to make the distinction. Good riddance. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This situation presents an interesting approach to WP policies, etc and representing the facts. If you provide a "credible" source that clearly distinguishes that the legislation was racist there can be no denying within WP that someone said that the legislation was racist and that proper contention exists to remove it from being considered POV. What is the wording of the "official US apology"? This issue is controversial. This issue is potentially divisive. This issue can be distasteful. But WP does not exist for all the different flavors of ice cream to be changed into vanilla just so that someone is not offended by what is the truth. And the truth can sting. For some people a sense of revelation has to occur for it to be realized.

This is an aside. It has been a while since i took Japanese history in school so i am not so readily able to say just what capability did the US have in eves dropping on Japanese diplomatic communications before WWII. Sometimes i wonder if one of the undisclosed reasons why Japanese American internship took place was because the US did not have as complex a system of local surveillance of the community as what was wanted during a time of war?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that all of this is very well documented by scholarly research and has been for many years. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A recent revert

Hello. Here are a few comments and questions regarding this edit, in which you reverted an edit of mine, without giving any explanation.

Why did you think it a good idea to restore the old messages? They relate to a dynamic IP address, for which the recent edits do not show any resemblance to those which were the subject of the messages. Also, if by any chance the recent edits are by the same person as the earlier ones, he or she has already seen them. You may have a good reason, but if so please say what it is.
Did you notice that you restored this edit? If you didn't, then it was a surprising oversight, as it is in the very first sentence of the first message. You are responsible for making sure that every edit you make is suitable, including restoring edits by other editors. Reverting without checking what you are reverting is not acceptable. Removing that edit was, in fact, the main reason for my edit; I thought that in view of the fact that the messages had by now served any purpose that they might serve, removing the whole lot was better than just reverting that one, which would have unnecessarily called attention to it. "Do not feed the trolls" is a good principal.
In your edit summary you gave the pair of letters "RV". That is not very helpful, for two reasons. (1) Many people, especially new editors, may have no idea what it means. (2) It is ambiguous, as some people use it to mean "revert", others to mean "reverting vandalism". If you meant "revert" then it was unwise to use an abbreviation which might give the misleading impression that you were accusing me of vandalism, and I will be grateful if you can reassure me that you weren't, while if you meant "reverting vandalism" then I would really like you to tell me what about my edit caused you to view it as vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was odd that the entire history of the vandalism committed by those using that anonIP would be wiped. I missed the vandalism. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Your attention is called to WP:ownership in regard to editing at Manzanar. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policies on "ownership." Thank you. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gmatsuda. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm well-aware of Wikipedia's policies. If you think I've violated them, please have me suspended. Thank you -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]