User talk:Exploding Boy/archive

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

Please do not modify this page

Archived July 19, 2004

The Cure

Hi, you may have noticed I reverted your change at The Cure. If you are going to delete information, please explain why in the edit summary or on the talk page. Is this information incorrect? Tuf-Kat 07:55, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for expanding on The Cure. I have made various minor changes to it, and added an introduction. If you have any questions on our music standards or the linking and disambiguation changes I made, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Tuf-Kat 18:03, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Japan

That's a good article! :) --Yacht (Talk)Q 02:01, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

    Thanks, but it's far from finished! Exploding Boy 08:30, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

AIDS

Your opinion on my reworking of AIDS would be welcome. Also I have redirected poppers to nitrite inhalants which seems a more scientific term.

Interesting collection of articles you have worked on. Could I guess that you are a Japanese gay man living in Vancouver? Adam 11:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree there needs to be a section on AZT and the early search for treatments. I have articles of mine from that period which I can cannibalise for that.

Interesting that you detect an anti-gay bias in my writing. As a gay writer I have always tried to be scrupulous to avoid special pleading for the gay community when writing about AIDS. Perhaps I go a little too far sometimes. Adam 00:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Japanese names

Is there a reason why you insist on moving Kobo Abe to Abe Kobo without having received any support on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese) about what name order should be used for contemporary Japanese figures? - Tlotoxl 17:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  1. That's his name
  2. That's how he's known in the west too
  3. There's a redirect page so what difference does it make?
  4. According to the note at the top of the List of Japanese authors page, "Authors are listed by the native order of Japanese names, family name followed by given name to ensure consistency even though some authors are known for their western-ordered name." Abe is listed under A, not K, but the original link opened a page headed "Kobo Abe."

Exploding Boy 02:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

1) True, of course that's his name, but 2) when he's published in the US, Canada or England (dunno about the other English-speaking countries) the covers of his books read "Kobo Abe", not "Abe Kobo". I'm not sure about the List of Japanese authors page -- there are plenty of inconsistencies on wiki to be sure -- but those interested did seem to come to something of a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese). Why not argue your case there rather than change a single entry to FN-GN. Of course the redirect means it's not a huge deal, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me that we agreed to put contemporary authors in 'western convention' GN-FM, but that Kobo Abe's name alone would appear in its native order. -- Tlotoxl 05:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Haven't seen a consensus there yet :) Changed Abe because it seemed to me it made little sense to have him listed as Abe Kobo on the list page but Kobo Abe on the article page, especially given the note (see above). In the end I don't see how it makes a lot of difference either way the names are give, as long as there's a redirect page and name order is noted. Exploding Boy 06:08, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus found several months ago seems to have disappeared ;) Anyway, I hope we come to a new agreement soon. -- Tlotoxl 06:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The word homophobia was coined by Dr George Weinberg in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, in about 1971. Adam 13:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I wasn't the one who wrote that, but it's nice to know.Exploding Boy 13:49, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll Please come participate Sam Spade 03:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

big chunk of definitions

Hi! I don't wish to be rude, but feel a need to be frank and clear. I do not favor the insertion of long definition sections into wikipedia articles. Most of all since it makes the article harder to read, but also since it is a breach of good wikipedia customs. A definition of marriage belongs to a dictionary or possibly to the article of marriage - not in the article on same-sex marriage. I will not (yet) make any radical change of the article, but I hope you will consider to restore it to something more similar to its previous disposition (and other wikipedia articles). Much of what you recently added would in my humble opinion belong to the talk-page.

I might also say that I find the distinction between marriage and civil unions to be of some interest, but to me it seems as the current article is written for and by debators in USA, where that distinction seems much more discussed than in other parts of the democratic world.

Where I currently live (Denmark) the term in use is "(registered) Domestic partnership," and wikipedia's article on Civil union actually directs to the article on Domestic partnership, but in that article there is no relevant information. As conceptualized here, a blessing or maybe a marriage can be an "add-on" for couples who've registered as domestic partners. ;-> The domestic partnership is what carries the legal relevance. The church seremon is more of an ornament and a point where the fight for equality can be continued.

Personally, I would probaly favor a merge of the articles on Civil Union and Same-sex marriage, and turning the redirect at Domestic partnership into a disambiguing between Civil union and Domestic partner.

--Ruhrjung 03:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking specifically about the definition of "marriage"? Myself, I don't find it too long, and it makes clear the difference between legal and religious marriage, which is an important one in the same-sex marriage debate.
Yes, I think the definition of marriage belongs in the article on marriage.--Ruhrjung 12:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you mean the subsequent definition, I felt, in view of the controversy, that it was important to explain the use of "same-sex," however I agree; I will move the bulk of that section to the talk page.
Re: your comments on civil unions, there is a distinction: a "civil union" is not a "marriage." If it's not called a marriage, then it's not a marriage. This view seems to be shared by the majority of those in the debate, both for and against. This distinction, presumably, applies anywhere in the world.
The same applies to "domestic partnership." Basically, a "marriage" can be either legal or religious. A "domestic partnership" or "civil union" can only be legal. But only a "marriage" is a marriage (is this making any sense?). That's why there need to be separate pages for "same-sex marriage" and "civil union/domestic partnership," the same way they're separate for "marriage" and "civil union/domestic partnership."

No, your point of view does not make sense to me. :-) If the difference between "marriage" and "registered partnership" is, basically, that one is called "marriage" and the other is called "marriage" only colloquially, and the content of the two concepts are similar, then the importance of the difference seems somewhat inflated ;)

I would suggest that it lies in the interest of opponents of queer rights to diminish the contemporary international existence of legal recognition of same-sex families, and that's an important reason to stress the marriage with its religious component instead of the legal components which are shared with registered partnership as it has been practicized in Denmark for some 15 years, and somewhat shorter in other North-European countries.

As I understand the NPOV-concept, the separation of the article on same-sex marriages from that on same-sex partnerships is an unlucky concession to one side of the debate in one particular, however big, country.
--Ruhrjung 12:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy that the distinction between same-sex marriages and civil unions / domestic partnerships is an important one, and not just in the US. The same debate went before the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. Civil unions may offer some or all of the legal benefits of marriages, but as has been pointed out repeatedly in these debates, separate but equal is an illusion. Separate unions for opposite-sex and same-sex couples will lead to one being considered "the real thing" and the other a second class substitute. An umbrella article that directs readers to the marriage and civil union/domestic partnership articles may be a good idea, but merging them will only result in confusion, and an article that is way too large as well.
-- Kimiko 13:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See, this is kind of the point. If the difference between "marriage" and "registered partnership" is, basically, that one is called "marriage" and the other is called "marriage," then why aren't they both called "domesetic partnership" or both called "marriage"?

You're exactly right: it lies in the interest of opponents of queer rights to diminish not just the legal recognition of same-sex families, but their recognition as equal by the community at large. Unfortunately, a marriage by any other name does not have the same recognition nationally and internationally as the instantly recognizable "marriage." Exploding Boy 13:34, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've nothing more to add, and I'm not inclined to debate any of these matters. At least not yet. Maybe later - and then on the talk page. It's interesting, though, to learn how other people think.--Ruhrjung 12:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RE: Heterosexuality/****

Exploding Boy, I strongly urge you to seek mediation before you let things get too bad. **** was the first user with whom I ever found it impossible to conduct a civil conversation. Obviously this user is trying to put an unacceptable level of anti-LGBT POV into articles related to sexual orientation. This user does not follow simple precepts of Wiki-etiquette and employs several key tactics to spoil articles, namely editing/rewording others' words in an attempt to change what was said, and making dozens of consecutive edits in order to make it impossible to revert easily, while hiding what changes were made in the multiple edits without summaries. This behavior is not acceptable and I feel confident that mediators will agree. I saw you listed it for peer review, but based upon my experience, I doubt that will be sufficient. I'm really sorry I can't do more to help, but I always promised myself I'd never get involved in an edit war. Good luck, Paige 18:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey

I love your user name.  :) RickK 05:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

talk:anal sex

I know what its like to have a bit of Wikistress, and I'm sorry if you took what I was saying on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates the wrong way. I simply don't feel the article is ready for such lofty status, and to be frank, I was so annoyed with whoever wrote some parts of the anal sex article (you can see some of what I am refering to at the top of the talk) that I began editing! It was literally my first edit, and was prompted by sheer outrage at the bias I had found. I'm still a bit steamed about it, altho I wish it showed less :S Anyhow, while we may not agree about how ready the article is for Wikipedia:Featured articles I don't see us having much disagreement over the particulars of the page. Lets see what we can do!

p.s. I am a Members' Advocate and would be happy to assist if you have any troubles with unfriendliness on the wiki. Cheers, Sam Spade 14:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been involved in repeated disagreements and arguments sometimes becoming unpleasantness across several articles and talk pages with a particular user (see related message above) who, from my point of view, has a biased POV on the subjects in question. Things have become slightly acrimonious from time to time, and perhaps even more frustratingly, the user has failed to return to some of the discussions, leaving things hanging with no resolution but still basically in dispute; it makes editing difficult as one tends to worry that doing so will only fan the flames further. Anyway, as it's made me a little gunshy. Exploding Boy

I've had almost identical problems, and only recently. The obvious thing to do is simply talk it out/avoid them, and set a good example by using wikiquette. There is also wikipedia:truce (which I wrote myself btw). When that doesn't work (and its always their fault, of course ;), wikipedia:conflict resolution is a much better option than the edit warring, flamming, or all purpose grumpiness which so many engage in.

p.s. I got curious enough to look into who had originally made the edits that so annoyed me, and it not only wasn't you, but it was someone who generally writes on completely seperate topics, and (I am quite certain) ment only the best, filling in the article in its early days. Sam Spade 14:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Yakuza

Fantastic edit. The article is much clearer now. Tlotoxl

LOL, thanks. Exploding Boy

Ruyard Kipling

Just to let you know, I promoted Ruyard Kipling today from featured article candidate to featured article. I normally wouldn't mention it except you talk about it on your user page ;) →Raul654 05:32, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Cool! Exploding Boy

I don't believe it is true. Adam 05:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[sigh] Well I suppose it's possible to find someone somewhere who says or has said any silly thing we care to think of, but in this case I doubt that it's at all common (I've never heard it), and I don't think it's important enough to mention. Adam 05:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how old Exploding Boy is, but as one who lived through that period, and who was very active in the gay community response to AIDS at that time, and who read the Anerican, British and Australian gay press regularly at that time, I can say quite firmly that although the expression "gay plague" was frequently used by homophobes and (occasionally) in the tabloid press, I never heard a gay man refer to AIDS as "the plague." I think this is a case of retrospective myth construction. Adam 01:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


First on the matter of substance: the original sentence said that AIDS was known in the gay communities as "the plague." This is untrue: it was known first as "GRID" and then as "AIDS." I cannot of course deny that some individuals used the expression, although I have never heard or read of this. This is not a question of me arbitrarily denying that something exists because I have never heard of it. I have been intimately involved in the gay community's response to AIDS, both here and internationally, since 1983 (see my website), and if the expression was at all common I would have heard it.

Second on the point of etiquette. I apologise if anything I have said strikes you as discourteous. I have adapted to the standard of debate I found since beginning to contribute to Wikipedia last year, during which time I have been called everything from a fascist and a Zionist agent to a liar and a fool. I have had my articles blanked, my edits reverted, my home page vandalised, and my professional competence, intelligence and honesty attacked. This seems to be more-or-less standard here. Certainly I express my opinions forcefully, otherwise they get ignored, but I don't think I have been guilty of personal attacks unless provoked.

Adam 05:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Any interest on doing an entry on gay sex? Right now one doesn't exist and the phrase is redirected to "homosexual behavior." Moncrief

Yeah, sure, but don't let me stop you. BTW, is there one on heterosexual or bi sex?

Exploding Boy

No, neither. It's just that "homosexual behavior" sounds so clinical and I think gay sex is deserving of its own entry - not as a how-to guide, of course, but as a general overview of how gay people have sex. I might work on it at some point. Moncrief

Japanese kitchen tools

Thanks a lot for the great edits and the hints for the newbie related to the pages I created about List of Japanese cooking utensils. I really appreciate it! Maybe you could help me with one more question: I am always unsure if I should write Japanese expressions with or without spaces between the words, i.e. Tako biki vs. Takobiki. Or should I use the - character, as you did in Tsukiji sakana shi-jou. Any suggestions? -- chris_73 11:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I've quite enjoyed them. As for writing Japanese words, sometimes it's tricky and there aren't many rules, but if the words are separate in Japanese, write them separately, eg: 雛祭り Hina Matsuri (the Doll Festival). Not writing words sepearately in English would result in things like this: Nihonkanjinouryokukenteishiken. Write it like this instead: Nihon kanji nouryoku kentei shiken.
By the way, as for capitalizing, I only capitalize Japanese words if they are names (Nihon, Takehiro) or are at the beginning of a sentence. This is fairly standard practice as far as I know.
If the word is one word in Japanese (eg: たこ焼き), you can write it as one word in English (takoyaki), or you can write it with a hypen (tako-yaki) to indicate where the two separate words that make up the one Japanese word separate (it's shi + jou, not shijo + u or shij + ou). This is not always strictly necessary. Avoid doing this in names (it's Kyoto, not Kyo-to).
An apostrophe is sometimes used instead of a hyphen when writing names like Junichi in English (Jun'ichi) to indicate where the characters end (it's not Juni + chi, it's Jun + ichi).
In some cases there are standard ways of writing Japanese words in English (it's Tokyo, not Toukyou).
Hope this helps a little. Exploding Boy 15:04, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for the long reply. I guess I'll just go by my gut feeling, and use lots of redirects. If you like editing articles about Japan then we'll surely meet again, as I like to write articles about Japan (that need some editing) ;-) See ya -- chris_73 09:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of using a diagram of HIV as the lead picture at AIDS? I think it's a tired and irrelevant cliche. I agree the red ribbon wasn't great either. Do you have any better ideas? Adam 04:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why really. Ok, maybe the HIV diagram should be closer to where the article discusses the HIV virus (the article does after all say that infection with HIV is the precursor to AIDS), and the red ribbon is after all one of the most recognizable symbols. What else... Well, there's that Beneton ad I guess, but I'm not sure they need any more publicity. A chart of distribution? Images from anti-AIDS posters? Otherwise I really can't think. You? Exploding Boy 08:50, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)


Root canal of Japanese tea ceremony

Just thought I'd let you know - I just did a major rework on Japanese tea ceremony. The article was crying out for help, so I went in and wikiformatted it, cropped the pictures, moved the top-quote down, fixed the links, etc etc. I noticed from the page history that you've done a lot of work there, so I just thought I'd let you know. →Raul654 07:13, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit I was a little scared when I read the phrase "root canal," but nice job. Exploding Boy 08:56, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Follow up - I have a picture of a Japanese teapot that might make a nice addition, but you could probably determine where best to put it. →Raul654 09:24, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

It's not the sort of pot I've ever seen used in tea ceremony--they tend to be iron or metal and designed for holding plain hot or cold water rather than tea, which is prepared directly in bowls. Perhaps the tea page? Exploding Boy 09:27, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Question

Are you an admin? I'd like to nominate you if you aren't one already. You've probably been here longer than me but I don't think I've seen you do any admin duties, so I'm not sure. I know there's a list somewhere of who is and isn't, but I can't find it at the moment. Moncrief 04:14, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

EDIT: Ah, found the list and you aren't on it. I'd like to nominate you unless you have an objection. Moncrief 04:16, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection, but can I ask why? Exploding Boy 04:28, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
I just think you've been here a while and would make a good admin. Moncrief 04:28, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
You're supposed to go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship and accept at some point. FYI, in case you weren't aware (I know I wasn't). Moncrief 05:04, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

oh, ok. Thanks. Exploding Boy 05:10, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

stop

please stop making pornographic articles like Finger fucking. The wiki'll delete 'em. Radical WiKi 12:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)Radical WiKi 12:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, it's not a "pornographic article," it's part of the sexology topics series. Second, the article's encyclopaedic. Thrid, what do you mean "stop making"? Fourth, if you're objecting to the word "fuck" there's a precendent for articles containing that word. Fifth, if you'd like to see it deleted, list it on VfD. Exploding Boy 12:50, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Your "fan" has made an RFC on you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Exploding_Boy. I've filled out the template and added an outside view. While probably not needed as the RFC appears quite invalid, you may wish to add your response just in case. — Jor (Talk) 13:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'd already noticed, but decided not to comment as Radical WiKi did not follow the procedure. Perhaps I'll just make a note to that effect. Thanks again. Exploding Boy 13:55, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Genital Modification

Thanks for the genital modification articles you have been adding. Looking through some of your other additions, you appear to be an invaluable Wikipedian. Keep up the good work. --OldakQuill 23:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Admin Status

You are now one of the Wikipedia:Administrators. Please familiarize yourself with the information linked at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Congradulations on becoming a sysop. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. →Raul654 06:30, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Woohoo! Now how do I ban people? (kidding, kidding:) ) Exploding Boy 08:14, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Special:Blockip
Yes, congratulations! Was always nice working with you, looking forward for further contributions of yours. -- chris_73 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re - User:Angela is a bitch

This has come up several times before. Wikipedia:Usernames - "Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory user names. This includes offensive names". →Raul654 15:30, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted User:Angela is a bitch as the message doesn't need to be there and on the talk page. Personally, I would prefer the message to be only in the block message. When you block a user, you can type {{msg:UsernameBlock}} in the 'reason for block' field. There's a discussion about this on MediaWiki:VfD-Userpages of blocked users) currently. Angela. 07:17, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

So what's the procedure then? Place a message on their talk page and type {{msg:UsernameBlock}} in the 'reason for block' field? What does this do anyway? All these different policies and procedures are a bit confusing at the moment. Exploding Boy 08:41, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Just use your good judgement and you'll do fine. No one will blame you for a good faith effort when the rules are confusing like this. →Raul654 06:13, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
What Raul said is absolutely right. Don't worry too much about the minor details. The blocking policy is not completely stable at the moment anyway, so it's hard to know exactly what you should do. {{msg:UsernameBlock}} is something completely new, and many people don't use it anyway. My view is that if someone is blocked purely on account of their username, then the message should be put in the block message (ie- just type it into the reason for block message), but Martin thinks it should also go on the talk page. However, if you're blocking someone for vandalism, not just because of their name, you don't really need to do either. "Vandalism" as the block message would be fine. Whatever you add to the block message will be shown to the user every time they try to edit a page, along with the text on MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Angela. 16:10, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

VfD "Black Skin, White Masks"

I've removed your item of Black Skin, White Masks from the VfD page. When adding an item to the VfD page, the absolute minimum information you need to post is a link and a signature. You got the sig, but no link... Ok, just checked the deletion log, it looks like Dysprosia deleted the page. She must have thought it was a candidate for speedy. --Brockert 08:37, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Rather than deleting the listing and posting here, you should have just added the link to VfD the page if I forgot it. Exploding Boy 09:06, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

That wouldn't have really helped, since the page had already been deleted. My point was that if the person submitting something to be deleted doesn't link to it then things get confusing, as the section header isn't always the thing to be deleted. Not that it matters now. Any relation to Badly Drawn Boy? --Brockert 09:37, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

We share the last name Boy, obviously. Distant cousins thrice removed. Exploding Boy 09:48, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


Sathya Sai Baba

I appreciate your comments (and to some extent I agree) but I don't understand your criticism about the unexplained terminology. Could you give an example? Some people who didn't know anything about the subject had no difficulty understanding the terminology. I also don't understand the unencyclopedic language criticism except ("can't). Please don't forget that the summary always will bring some redundancy. Thanks in advance. Andries 21:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to reread the article, but I do recall two terms in the first paragraph: manifestations and materializations. Exploding Boy 06:12, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Exploding Boy, I am busy with improving the article. I hope you can re-consider your opinion as soon as I have finished which will be soon hopefully. Will let you know when. Thanks in advance. Andries 20:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

differences

It is clear that you are becoming emotional in the exchange on Talk:anal sex, and also clear that you are reading things into what I have said which I am not saying. I am going to continue the conversation, but I ask you please to take a moment to revaluate your assumptions, and your tact. This is a distressing matter for you clearly, and I do not mean to cause you discomfort. If you recall, I both endorsed your promotion to admin, and defended you in the debate from critic’s who saw you as biased on topics just such as the one we are now discussing. I said then, and I would like to be saying in the near future, how marvelously NPOV and easy to communicate with that you are. It has been my experience generally that the majority of arguments are due to misunderstandings, rather than precise differences. I would ask you to consider carefully what I am, and am not saying, and to be as unemotional as possible in your responses to it. I mean you no offense, and am likely far less offensive than you appear to have assumed me to be. Sam Spade 03:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not becoming emotional and I'm not distressed. I don't see the connection with your support for my adminship; and I don't recall anyone making specific comments about my being biased on this topic.
That being said, I apologize if you've been offended, but I percieve that you have some sort of agenda surrounding topics on sexuality (I'd add that I'm not the only one who has formed this impression). Facts cannot be claimed to be non-NPOV, so I'm forced to wonder at some of the statements you've made concerning homosexuality. As for the preference for the use of the word 'homosexual,' it's been gone over and gone over and gone over so many times that arguing for it just seems disingenuous.
Now, I think that probably you're just trying to ensure that certain articles remain neutral, but I think perhaps you might be taking some things too far. Facts, as mentioned above, are inherently neutral. Specifically, it's both unnecessary and non-NPOV to write things like (paraphrased here) "gay is a term used by those who want to promote the point of view that being homosexul is a happy and normal sexuality."
I'd appreciate hearing more on your views. Exploding Boy 06:12, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Actually I have been removing all articles within the wikipedia sexuality project from my watchlist due to rudeness, harrassment, and promotion of innacuracy/POV by enough editors to make my editing them unrewarding. This one is still on my list because it is the first article I edited, and I therefore don't want to take it off for sentimental reasons. Why my opinions are relevent I don't know (were supposed to be NPOV, and thus not focusing on our own POV) but I go over them a bit on the talk page in question. Sam Spade 06:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, in many of the instances you mention above I've tended to agree with those who've disagreed with you. This is a gentle suggestion: perhaps you are not as conversant with certain topics as you might have thought. Exploding Boy 06:38, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Of course you agree w them, its a pro-gay POV excess that is the problem on project sexuality. Your quite right I'm no expert in the specifics (altho I'd say I'm pretty conversant in heterosexuality, thank you very much ;) on these, but I know bias when I see it, and I am able to look at references and discover quickly that heteronormativity is hooey. Anyways, I took the 2 above mentioned (and some other) articles off of my watchlist, the abuse and majority bias was more than I intend to bear as an unpaid volunteer. Eventually wiki demographics will change, and they'll be straightened up... as it were ;) No hard feelings anyways, Cheers Sam Spade 06:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really see no pro-gay POV, though from time to time I've seen an anti-gay one (not saying it was yours). Not saying that homosexuality might be an "unhappy" or "abnormal" sexual orientation is not non-NPOV. As for the use of the word "homosexual" as a noun, we don't use "oriental" either, and for similar reasons. Exploding Boy 07:58, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Disputing Factual Accuracy

It's probably a bit late to be asking this, but why did you dispute the factual accuracy of the page Vampire Lifestyle? Also, why was no mention of the nature of the dispute made anywhere? Falcon 04:24, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Because, as was mentioned in the Featured Articles discussion, this article seems to confuse the vampire subculture -- in which people dress up as, and play at being vampires, but don't actually believe that they are vampires -- with a psychological disorder. Exploding Boy 23:17, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
Please do tell me how it does this. Falcon 23:13, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

About the transliterations and stuff

Exploding boy, it has been declared that it has been okay to make redirects from alternate spellings. And on occasions where the Kunrei-shiki spelling differs from the Hepburn, and there are sufficient google hits, it can be putin the article itself too. WhisperToMe 03:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Also... "It's redundant to include the Japanese language link in front of the word やくざ. It's obvious what language the word is in. Exploding Boy 06:47, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)"

This is common practice throughout Wikipedia to link to the language. In other words, "so what if it is obvious?" WhisperToMe 04:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Just on a quick note, I've never seen such linkage on the various Chinese language pages (redirects are fine, however). As EB had stated, it is often times obvious; if it's not, then it's generally situated next to a parenthesized explaination. Also, while I support the inclusion of major romanizations to the main article, please add them at the end of the paragraph as it has been established that Hepburn is the de facto scheme (similarly, if a Chinese article included all of the possible romanizations, then it would indeed be trivial). --Taoster 16:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


It's not common practice to link to the language the way you're doing it, as discussed on various other pages. The fact that Wikipedia is not paper is not reason to add redundant, extraneous information to the articles, particularly when that information is not really correct. For example, the following are all possible romanizations of 東京: Tokyo, To-kyo, Tookyoo, Too-kyoo, Toukyou, Tou-kyou, Tôkyô, Tô-kyô, Tōkyō, Tō-kyō, Tõkyõ, Tõ-kyõ (these last two are particularly rare), but only one (the first) is correct as it is both the standard English spelling and the romanization used by the Japanese. Adding the others would be misleading and redundant both for these reasons and because (mostly) they represent obscure and largely unused romanization systems. Anyone who is familiar with those systems would also be familiar with Hepburn -- the system most widely used by the Japanese government and non-Japanese governments, and by non-Japanese scholars and academics -- and anyone who isn't would just be confused.

The situation with Chinese is different, as the two main systems of romanization (Wade-Giles and Pinyin) both are or have been very widely used and standard at different times, they are sufficiently different, and it is usually necessary to know both as older texts often use one form and newer texts the other, as well as the fact that there are some people, places and things whose names are most commonly known in one form rather than the other. This is simply not the case in Japanese. "Sinzyuku" may be one possible (though outdated) spelling of Shinjuku, but the area has never been widely known as Sinzyuku, the standared English spelling is Shinjuku, and the name as romanized by the Japanese is Shinjuku. The same applies for Huzi (富士 Fuji), Tiba (千葉 Chiba) and tya (茶 cha). Oh, and one more thing: practically every single keyboard input method for Japanese is based on Hepburn. Exploding Boy 00:37, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Whisper to me added:
"It's been driving me mad that some user keeps placing a link to Japanese language in front of every word given in Japanese in articles on Japanese things. It's so unnecessary! It's obvious, for example, in the article on Osaka, a Japanese city, that 大阪 is Japanese for Osaka! Exploding Boy 08:13, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
"BUT "Japanese" in this context means the language... and it's perfectly acceptable in the English language. The link is staying, although it can be like this Jp 大&#38442 or this 大&#38442. But look at Rome and many other "foriegn language" articles."

Obviously the link means the language... It's redundant and unnecessary, and you appear to be the only one who insists on its inclusion. It would be like saying "France's Eiffel Tower (French Tour Eiffel) is...". It's pointless because it's so blindingly obvious. Exploding Boy 00:43, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Some Kunrei-shiki are more popular than others. E.G. Sinzyuku gets 455 google hits, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga actually is most known under his Kunrei-shiki name, Nissin is actually a Kunrei-shiki name, Hanahuda gets 197 google hits, Inuyasya (instead of Inuyasha gets 1,890 hits, and if one enters "Koizumi Zyun-Itiro", 3 google hits including 2 Wikipedia hits, Google suggests "Junichiro Koizumi" as a search link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=Zyun-itiro+Koizumi is proof) - No, Kunrei-shiki is not common outside of japan, but it can be listed depending on the circumstance.

And about the "language link", we know that Roma is "Rome" in Italian, and that Cuidad de Mexico is Mexico City in Spanish, but why should Japanese articles be exempt? WhisperToMe 00:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, with this: 大阪市, this is what I am really doing. [[Japanese language|大阪市]]. Again, this is commonly done in the Korean articles, as they have to reckon with Hangeul and Hanja. WhisperToMe 00:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

"Spelling Fuji as Huzi is inappropriate because at best it's an academic exercise, that is, what you're really saying is it's also possible to romanize it as Huzi. "

Untrue. Kunrei-shiki did not become ISO 3602 for nothing! WhisperToMe 01:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

This again is all redundant. If a company (like Nissin, above) is known by a a particular spelling, then that's how it should be spelled. Especially in cases like this adding another romanization (Nisshin) is wrong since that's not the company's name. What I said above still stands: what you're doing is nothing more than an academic exercise, and it doesn't belong here. Also, please respond to posts in their original locations; it makes things much easier. Exploding Boy 05:16, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Kunrei-shiki spelling (the word "ninzya") found on wikipedia which I didn't put in: Samurai#Evolution of samurai culture during feudal-era Japan - Checking the edit history proves that I did not insert the word.

Even though Nissin is the company's official transliteration, people sometimes use "Nisshin" - and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga is sometimes referred to as "Shinichiro Tomonaga" though this isn't how he spelled his name. In addition, Wikipedia's article on Inuyasha is at "Inuyasha" though the English version is spelled "InuYasha".

WhisperToMe 07:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

You are the only user who supports your position; everyone else disagrees with you. Please stop adding this ridiculous misinformation to articles. Exploding Boy 12:16, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
This is misiformation? And "everyone else" is an exaggeration. Read TakuyaMurata's posts. WhisperToMe 00:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Kyuzutu

Kyuzutu corresponds to Kyujutsu, which redirects to Kyudo. WhisperToMe 00:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that's again a misromanization. Would you please stop this insanity? Exploding Boy 00:48, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

No. This is not insanity.

Nor is that a misromanization.

Kyu-ju-tsu converted into Kunrei-shiki

Ju -> Zyu Tsu -> Tu

Kyuzyutu

And for the record, you should start going on IRC to discuss this. IRC.FREENODE.NET - #ja.wikipedia - And there are people on there who agree with my position (Redirect alt. romanizations, insert them in select articles) WhisperToMe 00:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It is a misromanization. As you yourself pointed out, じゅ is zyu. You romanized it as zu, which is ず. Insanity? You've created no less than nine redirect pages for Hachioji. Nine! And you are not inserting alternate romanizations in "select" articles, you are inserting them in every Japan-related article you can find by the looks of it, going against the so far agreed-upon manual of style and the objections of all users who have discussed the matter on the relevant pages. I don't use IRC. Exploding Boy 01:00, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
There may be some people and places who are better known by their kunrei-shiki names, but what's with including kunrei-shiki spellings in articles like Fukuoka, Fukuoka?? I have never seen Fukuoka written as Hukuoka. Same goes for geisya -- which was poorly justified by saying that it turns up google hits; sure it does (though 0.1% as many as "geisha"), but mostly on Japanese language web pages. IMO Kunrei-shiki is good for one thing and one thing only: typing quickly. The rest of the time it is an unfortunate relic. But never mind that I hate it, the point is that it is being needlessly added to a lot of articles, diluting the importance of the standard romanization. Someone reading the Fukuoka article might actually think that Hukuoka is an acceptable (maybe even commonly used) alternative romanization of Fukuoka. (sorry for sing your talk page to rant, exploding boy - I have no intention to go on to IRC to discuss this either)-- Tlotoxl 01:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It's driving me crazy because one user, Whisper to me, seems to have a bee in his bonnet about alternate romanizations, as well as about adding variations on links to "Japanese language" (given variously as J., Jap., Jpn., Japn., Japanese). They clutter the articles, are misleading and confusing, and are often just plain wrong: for example, he's created a redirect to Koizyumi Jun'itirô, a ridiculous mishmash of romanization systems. He insists on adding alternate romanizations even to things like established company names. "Nissin" may be intended to be pronounced as Nisshin, but that's not how it's spelled, regardless of whether it's theoretically possible to romanize it that way. All of these stuff belongs on the romanization and romanization system pages, not in the articles. There has to be some way to stop this besides following him around and cleaning up his mess. Exploding Boy 01:12, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, please discuss the relevant topics prior to making such changes and do so only after reaching a general consensus. It is not necessary to add obsolete or otherwise unused romanizations; again, it is redundant and of little consequence towards the readers. --Taoster 01:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Would someone please tell that to Whisper to me? Thanks "(Pin-yin: Taoster, (Wade-Giles: Daoster)". Exploding Boy 01:15, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

This message is directed towards Whisper: On a similar note, please stop adding WG transliterations to individuals of the PRC who have never been referred to as such, regardless of how many "hits" turn up with Google. As is the case with medians, extremeties are rarely significant. If you have a beef with Pinyin, then discuss it. --Taoster 02:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I tried to. I asked if the amount of google hits that Hu Jintao got with new terms would be acceptable to have the WG added back, but Jp NEVER RESPONDED, so I added it back by default. WhisperToMe 03:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
"Would you please stop! The 湘南新宿線 is the Shōnan-Shinjuku line. It is NOT the Syonan-Sinzyuku Line! Exploding Boy 03:32, May 24, 2004 (UTC) "

And Inuyasha is called InuYasha in the English version, but the article is at "Inuyasha", not "InuYasha".

And many have called "Sin-itiro Tomonaga" "Shinichiro Tomonaga", despite that he spells his name Kunrei-style.

Official style does not matter in whether or not the article would get a redirect. No, I do not, nor will I ever plan to add the Kunrei there because that is not what the line is called in English, nor is it commonly called specifically by the Kunrei either. But as some people don't seem to give a damn about "official spellings", I will make redirects even in the "official spelling" articles. WhisperToMe 03:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

bathhouse

Really not a very professional display by someone whose neutrality has already been questioned. You clearly need to calm down, the statement you left on my talk didn't make alot of sense. Are you saying you dispute the factual accuracy of ALL of my edits to the page? I am not trying to fight w you, make you mad, or have the page removed or deleted. On the other hand, the more I read, the less I am impressed w this pro-promiscuity advertisement. Sam [Spade] 19:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the appropriate talk page and continue the discussion there. Exploding Boy 19:31, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

I find your threats, and the general accusatory and unpleasent nature of that discussion to be unnacceptable. I don't intend to be be harassed, insulted/malingned or otherwise pressured into giving in to your special interest group. Place me on RfC, or continue w a mediation process, I will continue obeying policy. If you are interested in my objections, review my previous statements. Thank you. Sam [Spade] 03:42, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You understand very poorly. Sam [Spade] 03:51, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit hectic how active the conversation is. Would you like to take it to #wikipedia ? Sam[Spade] 04:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Can we come to some sort of agreement to be more polite? I don't like confrontational or rude conversation, and I have found this to be rather stressful. I don't like these sorts of topics, and avoided this one for some time before placing my objection to FAC, so that you know. I was aware that it wpould be seriously unpleasent for me. Sam [Spade] 04:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Erm, I don't know. What's #wikipedia? I'm not trying to be impolite, Sam, quite the opposite in fact; but I find some of what you're posting to be offensive in the extreme.

How do you think I like the "homophobic" slur, and other biting comments? Sam [Spade] 04:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just calling it as I saw it. Exploding Boy 04:28, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Same here. Check this like, but it's prob not a good idea since you don't seem to know IRC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_channel Sam [Spade] 04:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, IRC. No. I have no need for IRC and I'd rather keep this discussion here where everyone can comment on it and there's a record to back up whatever decisions are made. Exploding Boy 04:31, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese articles

I wasn't adding any Kunrei to any articles, was I?

As for the "Ja" stuff, the talk on it went dead. See: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles#Linking_to_Japanese_language. As I cited examples and then I recieved no response. However, there is no "manual" relating to other languages (e.g. Spanish, French) WhisperToMe 01:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a bare minimum you shouldn't be adding the abbreviation "Ja." As for adding the link to "Japanese" (when it's perfectly obvious that the words are Japanese), it needs discussion. Exploding Boy 01:36, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, should I continue talking, despite that my comments were the last posted? WhisperToMe 01:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus reached you should not go ahead and just do it. Try listing it on RFC if it hasn't been already. Exploding Boy 02:06, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I listed it on RFC. WhisperToMe 03:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

a stitch in time...

Quite witty, I chuckled over that more than once since having read it. I admit it appears trite using a quote in a situation like that, and I have received previous complaint regarding the ease with which I dispense cliché. The truth is I didn't know a better way to say "I think you have tunnel vision on this subject, and are wrong, etc...". It seems very clear to me that you suspect me of possessing an anti-gay agenda (as you clearly have a pro-gay agenda). I don't think that’s the case. Yes, I find bathhouses (of the sort in the article in question) horrifying, but I would find a "straight" bathhouse of that sort also horrifying. Homosexuality itself is something I don't have a solid opinion on. I am not a believer in biblical inerrancy, and thus the anti-gay quotes in the bible (while handy clichés) don't necessarily convince me that you’re going to burn in hell. I think what you do privately is between you, your partner(s), and God (honestly I'd rather not know what goes on ;). I don't think the gay bathhouse article should be deleted, but I do think it needs a rewrite, with the inclusion of a great deal of "critique" type info, and balance. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, or if you have become offended or felt insulted during this debate. I am sincere, believe it or no, Sam [Spade] 17:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know quite what to make of that. Was it an apology? An insult? I'm at a loss.
I don't have a pro-gay "agenda." I should have thought that was obvious from the fact that I wrote the gay bathhouse article in the first place, and then proposed it for FA status, knowing full well that there are others who share your rather extreme ("horrifying"?) point of view on the subject. My only "agenda" is to prevent people from adding misinformation to articles about which I have a degree of -- often first-hand -- knowledge.
Including "a great deal of 'critique' type info" in an article does not create balance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Adding unnecessary criticism makes an article more non-neutral, not less. What we are concerned with here is the facts, not the opinions of those who find a given subject morally reprehensible.
To sum up the article in a few sentences, it describes bathhouses and says what they are for, how they appeared, and why they have been important historically. It gives information on why they are opposed by some people, and some of the potential negative consequences of using them. It adds some legal information as well.
If there is something non-neutral in the article you should be able to point it out in the above summary. You can't. The article would be non-neutral if it said that bathhouses are wonderful, or that no-one objects to them, or that there have never been any problems attributed to them. It says none of those things.
I believe that you, shocked by the subject matter and concerned for Wikipedia's image, tried to find something, anything, that would prevent the article from being featured on the front page, and that that somethine was an NPOV dispute. I believe that your bias both against homosexuality in particular and sexuality in general, which is obvious in your edit history and which you seem to admit to in your above post, has rendered you unable to judge the article impartially. And I believe that your lack of knowledge of the subject matter has made it difficult for you to deal with the article on any level.
The fact that you're the only user who disputes the neutrality of the article should tell you something.

Exploding Boy 17:28, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

You appear to have not understood me well. I think you'd be better of rereading what I said than having me try to articulate it differently. The article fails to be impartial in a variety of minor particulars, and in the major by failing to provide a comprehensive explanation of the criticism (which comes from all sides, even gay-rights activists). "opposed by some people" is a mighty understatement, I think you'd have to admit. Sam [Spade] 17:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again, how do you know? Are you intimately familiar with gay- and anti-bathhouse activists? Have you been studying up on the subject? Let me help you out: most gay people know about and accept the existence of bathhouses without bothering too much about them one way or the other. Those who patronise them do it, those who prefer not to do not. There's little fanfare either way. See, one thing about gay people in general is they tend to be a little less proscriptive and censorious of other people's sexuality. Some have argued for the closure of baths on the grounds that they contribute to the spread of HIV. This is covered in the article. Bathhouses generally tend to be good corporate citizens. They donate money to local charities and causes, they support pride activities, they provide free condoms and safe-sex information and still, after all these years, they provide a place where people can express their sexuality safely, without fear of reprisal from those who have nothing better to do than worry about what other people are doing. Exploding Boy 17:47, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

In the process of objecting to your article I of course did some research, The links I provided in the talk page are a clear testement to that. I am well aware of the range of feelings on this subject, and can assure you that if these sorts of establishments were widely known, gay rights would be set back 20yrs. Yes, some gay people are proscriptive and censorious. Prob MOST gay people, due to persecution. I don't see how spending more time on this is beneficial, you can read over my previous statements if need be. Sam [Spade] 17:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I read some of the links you posted, the first four, I think it was. They had nothing to do with gay bathhouses (aside from, marginally, the first one). It still baffles me why you chose to post them. And besides, doing a brief internet search does not ensure you are well-versed on a topic. I venture to say that you are far from "well aware of the range of feelings on the subject," though I'm pretty sure you're well aware of your own feelings ("horrifying"). Oh, and now most gay people are proscriptive and censorious, too. You're really doing a good job of hiding your anti-gay bias now, Sam! Your prejudice has obviously hampered your learning on the subject. The fact is that similar places exist for heterosexuals too. Where I used to live there was a combined gay (downstairs)/straight (upstairs) bathhouse. Where I live now, there are brothels for straight men that resemble bathhouses in all but the fact that the women are prostitutes. Straight sex clubs and swingers' clubs abound. Just because you have a certain attitude towards sex does not (a) make it right, and (b) mean that everyone shares the same attitude. I'll say it again: you do not have the knowledge or the impartiality to deal with this topic. Exploding Boy 01:25, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

shall we agree that the feeling is mutual? I couldn't imagine you being much more POV yourself :) Sam [Spade] 02:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, Sam, because I'm not the one trying to add a lot of non-neutral things to this article, you are. Exploding Boy 02:19, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

You might be interested in the further discussion currently going on at User talk:OwenBlacker :o) — OwenBlacker 01:25, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't seem like anything new has been said so far. I'm extremely wary of this proposed rewrite of Sam's, but we'll see. Exploding Boy 00:29, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

New things said

I'm sorry the "discussion" has gone on this long and has been filled with so much vitriol. I would just like to state that I am gay and against gay bathhouses, but honestly, I wouldn't try to block it from being a featured article. Just my two cents. A reply is welcome; e-mail, if you prefer. TheCustomOfLife 01:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't oppose it due to the topic, but rather the quality, in case anybodies interested. Sam [Spade] 01:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've read your comments. If anything, it was more 50/50 content/quality; at least that's how I saw it. TheCustomOfLife 01:27, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, your prob right. I guess a more honest statement is "I sustained my objection due to NPOV and other concerns based on quality and balance". Sam [Spade] 01:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I may disagree with your opinion, but you are most certainly welcome to it. I'm disappointed that a resolution did not happen. TheCustomOfLife 01:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
From the sound of it you agree about the bath houses, and not about the bath house article. As I pointed out on talk:Gay bathhouse, incivility (and the acceptance of it) is a technique utilized as form of psycho-social warfare. It is of course fundamentally opposed to compromise, resoloution, and/or consensus. Sam [Spade] 01:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you mean that I agree with you about bathhouses but not with you on the article, then yes, that is correct. For me, it's more of a "Different strokes for different folks" thing. I know I wouldn't go in one. But then again, I feel the same way about gay bars. Maybe my opinion will change as I get older, but that's how I feel right now. TheCustomOfLife 01:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My advice to any and all is to be healthy, and to do what is good for you spiritually. Also if what you do is likely distressing to others, please don't let them find out ;) As I tell my boys, "You only get in trouble when you get caught, so be sure not to bother me" :). Sam [Spade] 01:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's nice to read. Thank you for that last comment, Sam. :) TheCustomOfLife 02:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First Sam said:

    I didn't oppose it due to the topic, but rather the quality.  

I disagree. Not once have you made any remark that points out a problem with quality. Most others have remarked that the article is very well written. Your problem all along has been with content.

Then he said that, yes, it was more like 50/50:

    I guess a more honest statement is "I sustained my objection due to NPOV 
    and other concerns based on quality and balance".

I'm sick and tired of this. Sam, your objections are groundless and inappropriate. Unless you can point out where the writing of the article is problematic, or where the writing of the article causes issues with the content, you have nothing further to add. Exploding Boy 04:03, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely and, to be quite honest, resent that it's been unilaterally moved to the archive section of FACs. I think this iussue should go through the formal mediation process. — OwenBlacker 09:35, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find out who actually moved the page by checking the page history, though of course I have my suspicions. I think it should be moved back too. Exploding Boy 09:39, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

My watchlist reads
(diff) (hist) . . N Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay bathhouse; 01:13:03 . . Sam Spade (Talk) (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay bathhouse moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse)
OwenBlacker 09:52, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
I saw it when that happened. Yep, that's who moved it. I just assumed that the time had run out on debate so I didn't do anything about it. Still, I haven't been replied to and I'm feeling a bit left out. :( TheCustomOfLife 17:17, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Top/bottom implications

Re my contribution and your removing of it. The para was (and now still is) suggesting that anal sex was the only thing on anybody's mind, ie. if you lie face down, you're a bottom, and if you lie face up, you're a top. There's no alternative possibility that's given any credence. This assumption that sex always means, or includes, anal penetration, is one of the great stereotypes of gay sex, that I'm afraid programs such as Queer as Folk for all their other merits simply perpetuate. Some gay people are rarely, or in some cases never, interested in anal sex. At the other end of the spectrum, some would never consider sex without a strong anal component "real" sex at all. And there is an infinite variety of variations in between. Uneducated readers of this paragraph will get a VERY biased and slanted impression. Cheers JackofOz 09:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But I'd suggest that's certainly the implication of lying in a sauna cabin with the door open... OwenBlacker

Hi, I appreciate your workin on the article. The reason I removed your addition is because it is clear from the paragraph that that's not the only thing that goes on: "Those who would like to be penetrated anally ("bottoms") will sometimes lie face down on the bed with the door open, while those who prefer to penetrate ("tops") lie face up." In my experience at least, lying face down with the door open always indicates that the person wants to be fucked. Exploding Boy 09:57, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

To OwenBlacker: That "implication" is what you take it to mean, not necessarily what is actually desired in any particular case. To Exploding Boy: I agree that if you lie face down, you're "asking for it", and if that's not what you want, you should not give out misleading signals. But if you lie face up, you're not necessarily offering to fuck people, you may just want to have your cock sucked. The para still reads as if being a top and being a bottom are the only 2 possible reasonable interpretations of finding somebody inside a cubicle - which is 100% wrong. JackofOz 10:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jack, I understand completely (and I acknowledge that not all gay guys want to engage in anal sex — I'm one of them, it's just not really my thing), but I don't think that your revision is the best way of clarifying that. I've just edited it myself, does my wording leave you both any happier? OwenBlacker 10:27, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Good enough. Wonder if Sam would like to comment on this one lol. Exploding Boy 11:26, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about

This sort of harassment is why "ordinary" editors stay away from sexual/controversial pages. It has worked, and I am done w that page. I'm actually beginning to doubt if the wikipedia is a place I want to be at all. I'll reserve judgment on that for now. While I'm not exactly thrilled w you, I do think you kept within certain minimum standards (clearly others have not) and I thank you for that. I won't remove the NPOV header, but I also don't intend to edit (discuss, etc..) that article anymore. It was raul who removed your FAC request, not me. I just helped w some of the extras (properly linking the archive mainly). I will have you know that my opinions of everyone involved here have diminished considerably, but I will say you are by no means the worst of the bunch. Please learn a good lesson from this, rather than celebrating what is essentially a victory via bullying. Sam [Spade] 14:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I haven't done anything so don't accuse me of harassment. It wasn't me that made that arbitration request, and you'll note that the person who did referred to non-sexology topics in doing so. Anyway, what's the good of leaving if you're not going to remove your NPOV dispute? Are you going to make a fuss if someone else does it? And I hope you don't think you're above criticism either. Let me remind you that YOU are the one who made an NPOV dispute and are now, after two weeks of flinging accusations around and basically admitting you were biased by the article subject matter, telling me you're walking away without ever having done one single thing to try to solve whatever it was (you have yet to make it clear) that you thought was non-neutral. Exploding Boy 14:52, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure accusations of harrassment are all that helpful, Sam... OwenBlacker 21:01, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Heya. Is that really how we do blockquotes here?! *shudder* :o) OwenBlacker 23:06, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Shudder? Why? Exploding Boy 01:03, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I just think it looks awful. Surely indentation (like the HTML <blockquote/> element) is the "right" way to do it. I'm a typography geek…  :o) OwenBlacker 02:18, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

That's fine too. As long as it's not italicized and there are no quotes, and the full stop comes after the ending bracket of the reference. Exploding Boy 06:44, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Aaah, ok. Cool, thanks for letting me know. I did look around in the Manual of Style, but couldn't find anything that'd tell me. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. OwenBlacker 10:30, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

It may not be in Wikipedia's manual of style, but that's how blockquotes are normally done. As long as they're indented in a "block" it's all good. Indenting takes the place of quotation marks. Exploding Boy 15:07, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't've put in the quotes, though it's the code-like look that I dislike. And I like italicised quotes, but that might just be me. Anyways, 's hardly important... :o) — OwenBlacker 02:01, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, at least we seem to be making some progress on that page. Exploding Boy 02:02, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Kunrei shiki in the Power Rangers page

Strange subject, but since the Japanese TV show is often abbreviated as "ZyuRanger" (1,200 Google Hits), shouldn't we put the Kunrei in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers article? WhisperToMe 19:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About the Hanyô page

The Hanyoo page says that Hanyô are only in InuYasha. The Yôkai page says that they are in Japanese folklore. WhisperToMe 20:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

wow, look...

were agreeing about something again. Isn't that droll... Sam [Spade] 02:35, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's freaking me out. Now let's never speak of this again. Exploding Boy 02:36, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

dang, and I was just going to tell you about the gay friend I had at work once, and how my maid is black... Oh well, never mind, the mood is spoiled now ;) Sam [Spade] 03:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jet Programme

There's a spelling error. "renumeration" should be "remuneration"

I'd like to thank you for your article on the Jet Programme, which is as balanced as any view on it. Are you a [former?] JET? I'm a current JET, and there seem to be some interesting trends across Japan concerning ALTs in case you're interested. I really have no idea how to do anything on Wiki except read the articles, and am not qualified to edit anything myself...

Anyone can edit articles on Wikipedia, even you! Go ahead, it's easy. And if you have any information on the JET Programme you'd like to add, go for it. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Exploding Boy 16:22, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

About the redirects

"Why do you persist with this ridiculous campaign to create redirect pages with every possible misspelling and misromanization you can think up? "

Exploding Boy, it's a preventative measure. I thought I had shown you before on why redirects like that need to be placed. (E.G. the Laayoune and El Aaiun articles)

2. What do you mean by "cleanup"? Do you mean removing improper romanizations that don't have currency?

3. Some of the "improper" romanizations are used by others and therefore, are redirected as a preventative measure. (E.G. IMdb uses "Kyôryû sentai Juurenjâ"), and some examples that use two romanizations systems at once (E.G. Yugi Mutou, which is actually Yûgi Mutô) are "official" (e.g. Viz uses it). But barring those cases, I try to make only proper redirects.

4. The redirects are "confusing" because romanization is confusing. Period.

5. I'm gaining more knowledge of this, combined with Wiktionary (which has entries on Kanji which state what they are), my friends on #ja.wikipedia (Which by the way, you need to get on IRC), and several Wikipedia reference tables, I will continue to edit Japanese articles and I will continue to make redirects.

WhisperToMe 07:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have IRC and have no plans to get it (if that's indeed what you were suggesting. It's unclear what you mean in that sentence). I already contribute to the Japanese Wikipedia.

Your redirects are ridiculous when it comes to names in particular. I'm not going into it at length again right now, but it's unnecessary and counter productive to romanize names in every single way possible, in part because most of the romanizations you're creating are mishmashes of systems people just don't really use. Romanization is really not that confusing when you understand it. You clearly don't. Good for you for trying to learn, but looking at romanization tables doesn't teach you how to speak Japanese (witness your fiascos on Osaka, for example).

By all means continue to edit Japanese articles, but do us all a favour and stick to editing what you actually know something about. Exploding Boy 07:09, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that I wanted you to go on IRC.

The "fiascos" are a thing of the past. :) You won't be seeing any "Shimo-Usa"'s because I can look up Chinese characters on Wiktionary and figure out they are romanized. And you won't be seeing any more "Osaka"'s because I learned about the o-o and the o-u hiragana stuff.

Another thing is that if someone needs to move a Japan-related page that has many, many redirects, he or she should to go to me and I'll do it.

One more thing, if there is a situation which involves something that I do not know about, I will bring it up with other people first before trying to make an edit related to it.

WhisperToMe 15:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keiko Yukimura

1. Keiko is known as "Kayko Yukimura" ONLY in the English anime - She is "Keiko" in the manga. 2. I added the hiragana as Japanese YuYu Hakusho video games use Hiragana (As the target audience of those games didn't know Kanji at the time they were sold). I wouldn't have added it if this wasn't the case, but I don't care about it too much. 3. You didn't bother to ask me why the hiragana was added here when it wasn't added elsewhere, so the "You just don't listen do you, Whisper to me?" was uncalled for.

WhisperToMe 21:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about, actually. I was talking about the abbreviation "lit.", which we've been over many times. Exploding Boy 23:29, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ellipses

Ellipses are space dot space dot space dot space ( . . . ) when you don't have an actual ellipsis character; they're &#8230; (…) or &hellip; (…) in HTML. See an article on A List Apart (you'll have to search for the word, as it's a long way down), for details; or even Ellipsis. — OwenBlacker 13:43, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if you're talking about trailing off at the end of a sentence it's like... But if you're talking about removing words from a sentence it's . . . Exploding Boy 15:36, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
PS, I've just reverted your change to Gay bathhouse. The elipses as changed were not correct. This is not about html, it's about citation style. The "space dot space dot space dot space" format indicates that words have been removed from a direct quote. Exploding Boy 15:40, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
No, your version (using periods, with or without spaces) is a direct replacement for the one I've used (which is a single character, specifically reserved for that purpose). They are both correct in either context, but the single character is "more" correct, in the same way that &mdash; is typographically "more" correct than hyphen hyphen. Technically, it should be period quarter-em-space period quarter-em-space period both in the middle and at the end of a sentence, but the single character ellipsis (…) is designed to model that typographical standard exactly.
Your reversion makes the typography of the article look less professional, the same way as using hyphens instead of em- and en-bars would. It's not a big thing, but it is typographically incorrect. Take a look at the article Ellipsis and the ALA article chunk I cited before; trust me, typography is one of my things. :o) — OwenBlacker 17:41, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've checked several manuals of style, some online, including most of the major ones (MLA, Chicago, APA), and all agree that ellipses are as follows " . . . " except when they come between two sentences, in which case there are four dots. Exploding Boy 01:08, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The number of dots isn't at issue, we agree completely; you're right. The issue is that typing " . . . " is an imperfect way of dealing with the fact that keyboards don't have an ellipsis button on them. Fonts do have an ellipsis character in them, though (in ANSI space 133, [1]), which is what the symbol I have (twice) inserted is. It performs exactly the same function yet spaces the dots "properly", putting a thin-space between the dots, rather than a whole-space. To quote the top Google hit (essayinfo.com) "Some software can create an ellipsis that can replace three separate periods." That's exactly what the HTML entities &#8230; and &hellip; do, they create the proper form of an ellipsis, rather than typing three dots individually. Quoting Queensland Education board: "Many word-processing programs have a key that will produce an ellipsis (. . .), and the advantage of using this key is that your three dots will never be separated at the ends of lines"
Compare three dots with an actual ellipsis character in the image [2], from the Digital Type Design Guide. Googling for ellipsis and typography shows lots of links ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) that say the same thing. I get the impression you think I'm disagreeing with you about the number of dots in an ellipsis, which I'm really not. All I'm saying is that there's an actual typographical character for an ellipsis; you're not using it and I think we should. This dicussion is essentially the same as whether we should use and em-dash (—) or two hyphens (--); I'd tend to the former, you're doing the equivalent of tending to the latter, which I think just looks unprofessional (typographically speaking). Please do take another look at the ALA article I mentioned, that explains it all quite well.
Sorry to keep going on about it, but I'm a bit of a typography geek. I'd go and expand the entries on punctuation here on WP, but I'm deliberately leaving them frozen for the moment, so we can't accuse each other of changing them for the purposes of this discussion ;o) — OwenBlacker 10:51, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


Yeah, I read that article. The problem is that this typographical character creates a space between the dots that's so small it doesn't appear to be a space at all, so it just looks like you typed three periods ... To me it looks absolutely wrong because, as we've agreed, ellipses do have spaces between the dots.

If the issue is one of breaking up the ellipsis at the end of a line (not an issue in the quote that started all this) then surely there are other ways to deal with that.

I'm curious about how the ellipsis character can be spacing the dots "properly" when the "character" (if we can call it that) originated as hand-written and then typed, and this character looks different (and therefore not "proper")? Exploding Boy 13:15, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're saying (though there are quite a lot of online references that don't agree with putting spaces between them, which I think looks even uglier than space-dot-space-dot-etc). The point is, though, it's a specific character designed for the purpose. Space-dot-etc is just a way of mimicking the single character; whether we like the way it looks or not is a subjective æsthetic judgment on the font, rather than an objective typographical judgment on whether or not it's the right glyph to use.
Pretty much all characters evolved from scribes to hot-metal to screen. A Venetian printer invented the semicolon, but we can't argue over whether or not it'd look better by using some other combination of characters that looks similar; the umlaut originated by writing a Fraktur letter E over the vowel, but it is now correct to use dots (rather than diagonal lines, like Sütterlin handwriting).
My point is just that the ellipsis character is the right one to use, irrespective of whether we personally feel that Arial doesn't put enough space in between the points; using space-dot-etc is just a way of faking it. Saying we should use space-dot-etc rather than an actual ellipsis character is like saying "I don't like the way the number one looks in Arial, so I'm going to use a capital-I instead, because I prefer they way it looks", n'est-ce pas? :o) — OwenBlacker 07:23, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

But you see, space dot, etc is not mimicking the single character or "faking it". If anything it's the opposite. There's really no need for an ellipsis character because an ellipsis consists of periods and spaces. It appears incorrect, the same way that substituting a 0 for an o isn't right because it looks wrong, despite both having a similar appearance.

But no, it really is faking it. The character used by typographers when setting printed type is made up of three periods separated by the character "thin space". The only reason it looks wrong to you is because I guess you're used to seeing full spaces between the dots, because most typesetting environments you're used to (particularly the Web, but also some printed matter) don't have access to the thin-space character. If you type dot-dot-dot in Microsoft Word, or many DTP programs, it'll replace the characters with the ellipsis glyph, at Unicode point U+2026.
To you, that glyph looks wrong; to me, as someone who has worked in print media and as a typography geek, faking it with full-spaces looks wrong, I guarantee you that any typesetter worth their salt would agree with me. The amount of space put into that glyph varies by font; if you don't like it, you should take it up with the font foundry, but using dot-space-etc is empirically wrong, whereas the single glyph is the correct way to handle it. You wouldn't use an en-dash (–) because you think an em-dash (—) happens to look too long in Arial, would you? :o) — OwenBlacker 07:22, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move this discussion to Talk:Ellipsis and see if we can reach consensus on there, d'you think? — OwenBlacker 07:27, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Righto. Exploding Boy 08:52, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Rosetta Stone

Please see my comment/question on format at Talk:Harry Potter in translation. Thanks --Woggly 08:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Japanese high school thing

I didn't put that in there. (The original author, The Cunctator, did [9]) All I did was convert the circumflexes to macrons. [10], and Andycjp changed the "t" to a "k" [11]. Please look at the edit history first. WhisperToMe 09:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That would apply to Cantus and Andycjp, not me - They edited the actual "word" - I converted the circumflexes to macrons, which would make it fit with Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles (As there is no Viz involved; Viz-related articles use circumflexes because Viz uses them). The fact that those two people didn't put on the correct word or the correct changes doesn't make any reason to get angry at me. WhisperToMe 16:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Look at the edit history

"u've decided to go ahead, ingoring the lack of concensus, and add a link to Japanese language where one (three, actually) is not needed. Why do you insist on doing this? Why do you persist with this ridiculous campaign with the Japanese pages? Dozens of unnecessary redirects, links, romanizations... It has to stop. I think it's great you have an interest in Japan, Japanese, and Japanese things, but sit back and try to learn something before jumping in and messing with something you clearly know very, very little about. Exploding Boy 06:06, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)"

If you had looked at the edit history, you would have realized that I didn't add those links - I wikified them. I will not stop the redirects. WhisperToMe 06:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not according to the edit history I saw. And why, pray tell, will you "not stop the redirects"? The general consensus has been that they're probably not necessary, so why would think it's in any way useful? Or do you think that with your miniscule level of knowledge on Japanese language and culture you're somehow better able to decide than those of us who actually speak the language and live in or have studied the culture in depth? Exploding Boy 06:14, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
Let me put it to you another way: there is no way in hell a single article needs upwards of 10 redirects. Exploding Boy 06:16, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
There is at least one that does. Check out Osama bin Laden.

WhisperToMe 06:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[12] - The "Japanese" was already there. I made the a link. IF one allows a "Japanese" to be there in the first place, it should be linked. It is either linked, or it's not there at all.

General consensus says that it is not needed but that it is allowed. Redirects won't kill you. WhisperToMe 06:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the average article on a Japanese topic, particularly when, as in the case of Tokyo, there is a long-established English spelling of the word. Exploding Boy 06:20, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects are good, and don't hurt anything. I've added over a dozen to some articles. Theres no downside.. Wiki is not paper Sam [Spade] 06:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And no, redirects won't kill you, but paper or not they're a waste of space and time, and can frequently be misleading. Any idiot who typed in Toukyou (and there are worse ones, but I don't feel like searching for the obscure characters) and wound up at Tokyo might easily think that what he had typed was acceptable, when in fact it is absolutely not (and please, save yourself the effort: it's NOT acceptable). Exploding Boy 06:24, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

hehe, encyclopedias are to help stupid people, not judge them ;) Sam [Spade] 06:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe so, but in this case we have a user who has no knowledge of a subject editing pages and creating redirects that are . . . . For example, he's created the redirect "Ohosaka" for Osaka. Now, in Japanese Osaka is written with four syllables, none of them containing an "h." In English there is no H in the name. The H on your typical keyboard is nowhere near the "o" or the "k" or the "a" or the "s." What good is that going to do anybody? Exploding Boy 06:32, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

That was awhile ago, and I've learned from that. If there are any mis-romanizations I would deliberately redirect from (As I've seen many kids call Son Goku "Gokou"), I will label such as mis-romanizations. WhisperToMe 06:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Are you criticizing me on ommission? E.G. Are you are saying that I should have been able to check on if it is the right word at all if I had been able to convert circumflexes to macrons? WhisperToMe 06:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here. Exploding Boy 07:41, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, the person who put the word in is Cunctator, and AndyCJP changed around the word to another incorrect version. I converted the circumflexes to macrons, and you changed the actual word to its correct form. All of the other edits had nothing to do with that one word. That was a total of four edits related to the word.

I didn't know that was not the correct word, but I didn't actually "modify" it to what I thought was correct. All I did was change the circumflexes to macrons so the said word can fit MoS for Japanese. I don't understand why you are getting mad at me in particular even though I didn't put it in, nor did I make an incorrect change. WhisperToMe 08:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)