User talk:Katana0182

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

UMassWiki

Hello, I see you've made some edits to the University of Massachusetts Amherst article. Did you know there's an entire wiki devoted to UMass at umasswiki.com? Please stop by and make some edits or add articles! We've been around over a year and are serving up to 90,000 pages a month, but we could really use more good editors. :) --Neurophyre^(talk) 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Inherent Contempt

I thought your recent edit in the "Statutory proceedings" section of the "Inherent Contempt" page was excellent and did indeed expand the understanding of the ideological conflict going on between Congress and the President while stil maintaining a NPOV

--bowa

Demilitarisation/Appeasment

Re your edit [1], yes it does need a citation, but I have seen it (in high school history) said that due to England's lack of ability to fight a war against Germany after the demilitatisation after WWI led them to appease rather than confront Hitler. Your help in finding citations would be appreciated as I have no idea where to look for history sources....Shniken1 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:143.231.249.141 user page

Nice work. Plausible to deny (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many words?

I wonder if you might be willing to suggest ways to edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective?

I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org. An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances.

Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name

Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.

Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative. There is an inherent caveat in reliance on the imprimatur of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the newly formed Ministry of Defense (Japan). When the logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Wikipedia, this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.

As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name. As it relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.

Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.

Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue.

Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...

In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:

In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive." It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.

Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.

Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.

Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.

An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion. The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Am. exceptionalism

Hi, thanks for your message. It's nice to see that we could avoid an edit war; I respect all your edits (and I hope you respect mine). Yes, I do assume good faith and nothing I wrote was directed against you. The article itself though is clearly unbalanced at this time, reads almost like a manifesto. I might write a more detailed answer to you later. Thanks. Gregorik (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll attempt to refine my statements (within the article) in view of your message -- in a week or two. To reply one of your questions, I was trying to sum up in the intro how I think much of the contemporary world (incl. Europe and the US Left) interprets the phrase American exceptionalism when confronted with it. Obviously I don't own the article either so please feel free to add to it further. Thanks for reading. Gregorik (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Land War comment

On your comment: "Boycotts are lawful under the common law and non-violent. The right to engage in commerce implies the right not to engage in commerce.)"

you are right, of course, but the rent strikes were not a boycott. Rather they led to the adoption of boycotting as a method. The right not to pay an agreed rent can only lead to a) negotiations to reduce the debt or b) the tenant leaving.86.42.200.37 (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Burke Group

Hi Katana, for The Burke Group if you just revert to the previous version that I last edited, you'll see it magically no longer is an advertisement - because a few anonymous people keep turning into one, and excising terms like "union buster" and any neutral info about what they actually do. So please go ahead and revert! Wikidea 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jap Hunt Article revisionism

You have added a long list of Japanese war crimes in this article in order to give an un-warranted reason why Americans were motivated to murder Japanese-Americans. The problem with the list is obvious. Not only do the war crimes fail to establish a causal link to being motivated into Jap hunts, but many of the war crimes you listed were not within the knowledge of Americans at the time 'Jap hunts' occurred. Another user has deleted your contribution with respect to these reasons however, you allege that edit was vandalism and restored your own edit. This suggests two things about your motive for editing the article, firstly you are an apologists for those who took part in the Jap Hunts, believing that listing a long series of Japanese war crimes would seem to mitigate the sting against Jap Hunt participants, if not vindicate them. Secondly you were motivated by your own anti-Japanese sentiment, going as far as to reject the victimhood of Americans of Japanese descent who were subject to these hunts.

These allegations are not without ground. If you would refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jap_hunts&diff=251012165&oldid=244719493, this shows that you made further edits that display your anti-Japanese sentiments that were promptly deleted by another user for its clearly racist tone. I now put it to you to defend your own contributions or else face deletion for non-NPOV compliance.

Katana0182's reply, mirrored from User:Kilimanjaronum's talk page

Kilimanjaronum,

I've received your message. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katana0182#Jap_Hunt_Article_revisionism)

In your message, you state the following:

1. "firstly you are an apologists"

2. "Secondly you were motivated by your own anti-Japanese sentiment".

3. "This shows that you made further edits that display your anti-Japanese sentiments that were promptly deleted by another user for its clearlyracist tone."

You have - at the least - very strongly implied that I am an apologist for racialistic violence, that I have anti-Japanese sentiment, and that I am a racist. I will not dignify these comments by replying to the allegations that you have made. They are deeply offensive.

I find your attitude to be not in compliance with assuming good faith, which is a policy on this site. It's also a violation of theno personal attacks policy. This sort of personal attack is deeply offensive and unbecoming of an editor on this Project.

With all due respect, I would suggest that you criticize the edits that I made, not accuse me as a person. If you wish to discuss the edit or the diff in question, please feel free to leave a WP:CIVIL and substantive message on my talk page, and then I will be more than happy to discuss it.

Katana0182 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reposted on user talk page of User:Kilimanjaronum; posted on userpage in error.

Katana0182 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Added to Katana0182's talk page. Katana0182 (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Katana0182. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Genocide

Thanks for your moderate message. 1920-21 courts were not independent; they were held under the pressure of the invader armies. And also they only judged some 'local' officers, which does not suit within a genocide term. Malta was never completed; and from that time to our day; no other international court decision calls the event as a genocide. That is also why, Armenian terrorism -ASALA- killed dozens of Turkish diplomats.--hnnvansier (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoted by the independent

I'm not sure if you are aware, but you were quoted by the indepdent at Is wikipedia cracking up?.

It says:

Its detractors argue that a similar clampdown on the German-language version of Wikipedia has meant it can now take three weeks to see an edit appear there. In Germany, since last summer, all edits to all pages have had to go through flagging. "This will drive away newcomers, create a backlog of massive approval queues, cause an exodus of editors opposed to oversight by the WikiBureaucracy of their edits, cause umpteen edit conflicts, create a system of prior restraint, and place a chilling effect on the development of Wikipedia and the greater Project," user Katana0182 wrote in response to Wales. "This is like assuming bad faith on a massive scale."

— http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html

Smallman12q (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. Still, the Independent got it partially wrong, I wasn't writing to Jimbo, I was just commenting on the idea of it, along with like 200 others. I'm glad somebody thinks my argument against the concept is good, because it would be an utter disaster in practice, kind of like destroying WP in order to "save" it. Thanks for pointing it out!Katana0182 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Something to brag about about in the future=P. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vernon

As you may have seen, I'm not the only one to believe that the wording was POV — cited bits can easily be used to make POV points. Undoing a referenced edit is quite proper if the resulting text is problematic. I'm quite familiar with policies; among other things, deletion policy doesn't apply to the removal of problematic text from articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear optimism

Can you please review the latest modifications to Nuclear optimism?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is straw poll going on Nuclear optimism. Please feel free to weigh in.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)