User talk:Sir Edgar

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Eliezer 07:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tell Us More...

....about yourself. WikiDon 17:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia

You'll need to quote your source. Saying "Google it" isn't enough. I tend to beleive World Bank rather than some sites provided by Google. __earth 08:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you are a new user to the encyclopedia, and I just wanted to give you a nice warm welcome! :-)

A good tip for editing articles is to leave a brief summary in your edits. This helps other editors keep track of your changes, and also helps those who are patrolling Wikipedia in search of vandalism to recognize that your edits are legitimate. I thought your edits to Hong Kong were excellent, and adding comments to them would help other Wikipedians recognize you as a valued contributor. Keep up the good work! Oh yes, and feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you ever need me for anything, anytime! --HappyCamper 04:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Akihito

I've noticed that you and Mel Etitis have a little dispute about how to write numbers. Most style guides, like the Chicago Manual of Style, recommend using numbers, as in "thirty-seven" rather than "37". So at a glance I would suggest that Mel Etitis is probably correct about this issue. --DannyWilde 02:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima

I heard your reply, but many of the other users who edited the article seemed more to be messing up with my patience (sabotage) than helping me.

The way the article is designated is not good. The introduction tells about the physical and human geography, but it is used as introductionary content. The phrase that tells "Tsushima is part of Nagasaki prefecture, Japan" has nothing to do with its geography, (rather, politics) is placed in the geography section.

Last, but not least, Tsushima is widely known as Daemado to the Koreans and the local people (who officially accepted the name Tsushima). I had wanted to put the Hangul and Hanja, but they showed resentement, possibly because of political reasons. But I did that for cultural and informative reasons. Yes, Tsushima should be used as the proper name, as stated in here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), but common, alternative names should be mentioned in the introductionary paragraph. [[1]]

Last, but not least, a Japanese user has also removed some links from Korean sources. He had a confrontation, which is widely anti-Korean in background. The Japanese version has a lot of information on its geography, but it was not translated and put on Tsushima.

Tsushima is an interesting island that links Korea and Japan culturally. If we can edit to a background that reflects Korean-Japanese hegemony, it would be very good, I would say. Of course, I won't admit that the Japanese has established roots in Tsushima, but so does Korea as well, only a matter of quantity. Mr Tan 09:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Japan edits

In your recent reversion of Japan, I'm prone to agree that most of your edits restore more of a NPOV, or just make things clearer. But, there are two that I'm wondering about. First, the reversion to the 1937 map from the 1942 one (the caption seems to make it clear that the second map is better) see correction below. Second, the elimination of the details about the population decline. The statistical part showing a definite decrease seems worthy of inclusion–at least when we have the actual 2005 numbers. The part relating the decline to the impending financial crisis (while probably accurate) is still POV, so eliminating it is ok.

What do you think? Can those two segments be put back? Also, someone may want to see 日本国 restored to the name at the top, although I won't be the one to do it. If it is worded wrong, I'll just try to correct it as I did before. Neier 03:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops -- Confusion about the map -- it's not a 1937/1942 issue; but the way the original map is worded is very confusing; because "Until 1937" makes it seem like their occupied regions shrunk in 1937, 1938, etc; rather than the other way around. Neier 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Just so there's no confusion, that revert notice was intended for 24.7.65.199, not you. Regards, El_C 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

sprotected tag on Japan

I see you are reinstating {{sprotected}} several times to Japan. However, the article is no longer semi-protected. Please don't reinstate the tag again. (To see whether or not an article is actually semi-protected, log out and see if there is the "edit this page" link. The tag does not make articles semi-protected in the same way as {{protected}} tag does not make articles protected.) --Kusunose 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

merger for Seung-Yeop Lee

Hi, I merged the two articles Seung-Yeop Lee and Lee Seung-Yeop (baseball player). I figured I'd let you know that on yout talk page since you created one of them. I hope that I got all of the information from your page onto the new one; take a look and let me know if I didn't. --Deville (Talk) 13:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! One thing that I was starting to think about today was uniformization of Korean names. i know Chinese names have the same problem and individuals use different spelling and structure systems. But with Japanese, it seems easier. Is there a discussion of this on Wikipedia?--Sir Edgar 00:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Mr. Sir Edgar: I have appreciated your reasoned and fair comments on the Yayoi page. If you are interested, I would appreciate your opinions for this new "controversy" concocted by certain people. (I did the ridiculous back and forth with Hermaneus on the talk page before I got a screen name.) Thanks for reading this message. Tortfeasor 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Hi Sir Edgar,

Thanks for helping with Japan. I've posted some information about the lead section on the discussion page, including the section I had put in today, hoping that we can hammer out a lead that meets the description in Wikipedia:Lead section. I'm hoping to get the article to featured status, and eager to work on it. So I invite you to dig in and edit!

Many thanks,

Fg2 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas

All the figures on the list are from a single source. If you wish to change one figure, please choose an appropriate source that lists metropolitan areas and change all of the entries. It would be very hard to keep track of edits if we allow multiple sources. Thanks. Polaron 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Pamri • Talk 04:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle Power

Hi. I'm glad you're interested in improving this article. However I am interested in changing the nature of that article so that it only mentions countries that are popularly referred to as middle powers or often referred to as such in academic writings. The problem I have with the list as it sits now is that is makes inferences that any nation with an economy or population in a certain range is automatically a "middle power". That's original research. Now I know that currently the article doesn't match the list. This is because I've only started to overhaul it. I think that in both the list and the main body of the article, we should limit ourselves to countries that other sources have called middle powers, preferably several sources. I hope you will agree and will continue to help us improve this article. Thanks. Kevlar67 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

I have reverted Senkaku Islands and Pinnacle Islands. You should not move an artile by copy'n'pasting, which led to the loss of edit history. If you want to move pages that cannot be moved via [move] feature, you need an assistance of admins, see Wikipedia:Requested moves--Kusunose 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

email

If you have an email address, I would like to give equal opportunity for response by letter I have sent to both ACLU and Wikipedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.117.147 (talk • contribs) .

Liancourt Rocks

Hello Sir Edgar. Is the name of the Dokdo already determined? But I think you know that name of Dokdo is not neutral. Are there any more chance of moving the article to neutral position again? -- Himawarichan 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Himawarichan. Thanks for your question. Names of articles at Wikipedia are always subject to change. Should Japan take over Dokdo one day, I'm sure the article's name would be changed to "Takeshima".

But it has been decided for the time being that it would be titled so. The name "Dokdo" is no less POV than "Senkaku Islands" and for equal application of NPOV, there cannot exist "Liancourt Rocks" (a supposedly neutral name favored by many Japanese for a territory controlled by South Korea) and "Senkaku Islands" (a POV name for a territory controlled by Japan, but disputed by China and Taiwan) simultaneously. This line of thinking was agreed by a vote of 14 to 0 in favor of moving "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" (100% consensus). Thus, all links should be entitled "Dokdo".

However, I think for Japan-related articles "Dokdo (Takeshima)" or "Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks)" would be acceptable, since that is the Japanese POV. This would be the equivalent of saying "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", keeping the Wikipedia-accepted name first and the local country's name in parentheses.--Sir Edgar 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

PBS

Is this the link you're looking for? [2]. I would do it myself but I haven't figured out the </ref> stuff yet. Tortfeasor 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it! I have been looking for that link for a long time now. I could have sworn it was on ancient Japanese history, so I was mostly searching for "Yayoi" and "Japan" in the PBS site. But I guess I was wrong. Thanks!--Sir Edgar 06:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar: I just wanted to say thanks for your hard work. It's not only crazy anonymous accounts that notice. If you need any help with editing, etc. hit me up anytime. Tortfeasor 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

South Korea

Many thanks for the show of support in this little "dispute" (whatever the hell it's about) at the South Korea page, Sir Edgar... but I warned you it would be a waste of time to respond to him. I suppose it was my mistake to bite on our Japanese friend's obviously irrational "Korea wasn't unified from 1910-45" statement in the first place.

This morning, I got about half-way through the convoluted, intricate, meticulously insane illogic he responded with, and just gave up reading it. The guy's either a troll out for a time-wasting argument, or a raving lunatic. (For his sake, I hope it's the former.) He says I claimed to have no relationship with Korea, when I explicitly told him I DID-- I said I'm not Korean (or Japanese), but have ties to both countries. (If anyone cares, I'm white American, raised with Japanese, lived in, love and respect both countries, and married in Korea. So I've got a front-row seat to all this bickering, and get accused of being pro- the other, and anti- them by both sides. ) He then cites as evidence (for whatever "crime" it is he's accusing me of-- Being Korean?) that I work on articles about Korea movies "nobody cares about." Odd that he leaves out the equal amount of work I do on Japanese movies nobody cares about (I don't keep track of the balance, but suspect I've done more on Japanese movies, directors and composers than Korean. I started on Korea first because I assumed Japanese TV & cinema, being far more known in the West, would have already been well covered by other editors.) Or, for that matter, my work on American movies nobody cares about-- see: this ongoing project for evidence of that. Anyway, raving nationalistic fools in all countries-- like this Japanese one (and I've met plenty in Korea and America too)-- should help us appreciate the great people in their countries all the more. Especially those who are able to overlook the conflicts between their countries, and to help the common good (rather than harm it, as these nationalistic fools do) by responding to each other as human beings. -- Rizzleboffin 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You were right about avoiding discussion with someone who just assumes you are a liar. One thing I have noticed in the online Japanese community is that if you even show a hint of criticism against Japan or Japanese people, they accuse you of being Korean. This is especially true if you show that you know anything about Korea or worse, take the Korean "side"! I think this is very immature, simplistic, and annoying. But it still happens. See Talk:Dokdo page.--Sir Edgar 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really say the Japanese (in my experience) are any better or worse on this sort of hysterical and childish nationalism than the Koreans. In fact, I think it's more often their similarities than their differences that annoy each other so much. And this national superiority/inferiority complex is one of them.

But you're certainly right about this particular online Japanese "community"-- complete lunatics. As a veteran of online troll/vandal wars on other forums, however, I strongly suspect that this "community" is either one editor, or a very small group of editors.

I'm avoiding the Korea & Japan main pages because I dislike stepping into edit-war situations, and I've had my fill of being called "pro-Korea/anti-Japan," and "pro-Japan/anti-Korea." But in the midst of all the obviously POV drivel, I notice one sentence the sock-puppets put in that looks alright to me: "Historically, Japan had cultural exchanges with Korea and China." Might this be a better (i.e. more NPOV) way of putting it? But since the bias of these/this editor(s) is quite obvious, perhaps I'm missing something. I'll leave it to you and the other regulars there. -- Rizzleboffin 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Koreans are also very nationalistic, if not more than the Japanese. I agree with you there. But they don't seem to accuse people of being Japanese just because someone offers an opposing opinion. It's quite racist.

The exchanges between Korea and China with Japan in the classical period were nearly 100% one-way. That is Japan is receiving cultural advances and technology from Korea and China. So, that is not an accurate statement.

As for Korea/Japan articles in general, I'm feeling that all my work there is going underappreciated and I'm just getting caught in this silly rivalry and being criticized for pointing out something. So, I'm thinking about taking a break from them.--Sir Edgar 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right-- "Cultural exchanges" implies a somewhat equal two-way influence, which (as far as I know) didn't exist at the time. I can certainly understand your frustration with the shrill partisanship at the Japan & Korea articles-- indeed, my own dislike of it is one reason I try to stick to relatively neutral topics like film, music & animation. But I, for one, certainly appreciate editors like you who, in the midst of all the edit-warring and name-calling, are trying to maintain some degree of objective neutrality at these articles. It would be understandable if you want to take a break, but I hope it won't be permanent. Keep up the good work! -- Rizzleboffin 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Korea

In order to maintain the neutrality of this article, you have to delete the part where an opinion is opposed to each other. Because, there are another articles to argue it. If you write the opinion of South Korea, we also have to write the opinion of Japan. However, then, this article becomes diffuse. You should understand that this article is not an article of Japanese Annexation of Korea. There are another articles to write about Annexation of Japan-Korea.

Did you read the discussion?Objectman 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I am simply reverting to the version with the facts. It looks like all you're doing is editing out anything that casts Japan in a negative light. Japanese actions in Korea had a profound effect on that country. You can't just ignore all that. Anyhow, those are not my edits. I'm simply restoring them and you are engaging in borderline vandalism of that article (as well as my poor Talk page).--Sir Edgar 02:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Football World Cup 2002 naming controversy

Hello. You are the main contributor to the article about Football World Cup 2002 naming controversy. The article miss references; furthermore, in one of your edits you refer to a "source". Would you add references for this article?--Panairjdde 08:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, just give me a couple of days as I'm feeling a little burnt out of working on any Japan/Korea-related articles. I'm taking a greater interest in UK-related ones instead.--Sir Edgar 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You requested two days. Two years passed by. Now (Feb. 19th 2008) the article has been completely amended of any reference to the referee misjudgements that favoured Korea, including a critical statement by Mr. Blatter. Your work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.138.253 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan national football team

Sir (heh), I actually didn't delete that paragraph in Japan national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I created a new section, History, added some information and reworded that second paragraph, which is why it looked like I deleted that paragraph. Hope this clears things up. Ytny 00:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I just noticed that before I read this and reverted back to your version.--Sir Edgar 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I was just about to leave a "nevermind" message. Thanks! Ytny 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Italy national football team

My dear friend, it looks like you are loosing your temper! You even added a lot of {{facts}} for infos that are clearly documented! "I ask you to stop this anti-Italian bashing", to quote a friend of mine.

Out of joke, keep your anger out of WP articles, and be serious about editing them. --Panairjdde 09:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not angry at all. I'm just showing how that article has more holes than the Korean ones you keep picking on.--Sir Edgar 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not angry, you are just losing your temper. Adding unreferenced tags to sections well referenced, duplicating informations, adding not-important infos, just to prove a point agains other articles is against Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Panairjdde 08:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, you forgot: deleting evident references. But why bother? Let him play with his toys, the wikipedia articles of Korea and the Korean World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.138.253 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Needed

If you can, please revert the edit from South Korean NFT. I changed it to compromising statments yet Pan acts like an ignoramous and refuses to compromise. I can't edit because I'll get hit for the 3RR. Thank you

Hi

Sir Edgar thanks for the ESPN page now I have a reference and citations for the low quality football , and the low quality referees. Yes exactly from the ESPN page remember the football standard "was not quite up to scratch" and "the standard of refereeing described with alarming regularity in much less delicate fashion."[3] . If you want to see an amazing World Cup why dont you check out some 1970 videos or just turn your TV on and lets see how Korea plays without the help of the referees.  :)--201.138.124.63 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, the referees helped again.

I pity you.--Sir Edgar 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2002 WC article

Just seeing the history of the article. Why you delete information that can even be documented?, that every one, except for corean nationalists, agrees? If you are corean, or just think that they finish fourth because they were an incredible awesome super cool team... please, try to move on and accept that the 2002 world cup was full of controversy, specially with the corean matches.--Bauta 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other WCs have had plenty of controversy, but the 2002 WC is always under attack. I don't think the criticism is done fairly, especially the way it is worded. Not all observers agree with the complaints of Italian and Spanish football fans. As stated in other articles, their accusations have been widely disregarded.--Sir Edgar 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, I'm behind you fully on the World Cup 2002 article but I feel that I should mention WP:AGF as the motivations of the newly registered and anon accounts may not be racism, but merely sour grapes. I'm trying myself to keep that talk page reasonable by reminding users not to discuss their personal opinions, and it's hard not to feed trolls in this instance. Generally though I think you're doing an excellent job and your rebuttal is a good one. MLA 06:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job... mmm... But Thou have not answer the question, my sire: why do you delete information that can be documented? Something like the critical statement by Mr. Blatter on the referees of the Spain vs. Korea game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.138.253 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan

"Please do not delete content in Japan without discussing it in Talk:Japan. Blanket deletion of content without justification is considered vandalism. Thank you." I think this is more fit to you. See talk and think yourself. Thank you Mythologia 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See what in "talk"? Are you referring to Talk:Japan? I looked at the history of Talk:Japan for the past two weeks and see no posts or edits by you. Unless, you are using multiple accounts, I don't know what you're referring to. You have deleted two or three whole paragraphs in Japan without any explanation. That is vandalism. Please avoid doing that and keep your manners.--Sir Edgar 06:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Kamosuke edits. Your last talk edit is 02:20, 22 June 2006 Sir Edgar. "Please do not delete content in Japan without discussing it in Talk:Japan. Blanket deletion of content without justification is considered vandalism. Thank you.". Or as you wrote below.Mythologia 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

This is answer for you. Don't delete,plaese. > Sir EdgarMythologia 09:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not alter my signature and do not delete my answer please. >Sir Edgar.Mythologia 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility and Etiquette

Kindly avoid throwing insults or accusations at other Wikipedians who are trying to help. Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mythologia 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

That is exactly what I posted on your Talk page. Do not copy my posts on your Talk page and post them back to mine. Please refrain from this kind of childish behavior. I do not appreciate mimicry or imitation. Double-posting is not allowed, as far as I know.--Sir Edgar 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I only pointed out unreason that you who don't hold the rule flamed who hold the rule. What I did was a reverse, so the reason of the article was already explained in talk by the writer. But your article was not explained in tha talk yet. It was a mistake > Sir Edgar? Or you think you don't have to hold rule which you comment others? I recommend you to see yourself. Mythologia 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Racism in Japan

Hello Sir Edgar. You've drawn a yellow card regarding a comment you made on HaradaSanosuke's user talk page. You wrote: "Please do not refer to people as "Koreans" just because they disagree with you. That is ethnic labeling and is considered racist. This might be acceptable in Japan, but it is not tolerated at Wikipedia."

I think it is the height of irony that you would berate HaradaSanosuke for being a racist, and in the same breath imply that racism against Koreans is "acceptable" in Japan. According to your user page, it seems you have been to Japan, so I trust you realize what a stupid comment that is. Sure, there are racists in Japan, just as there are racists anywhere. And I think it is a fairly good bet that HaradaSanosuke may be one himself. But racism against Koreans acceptable in Japan? I trust that was just an emotional outburst?-Jefu 00:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to "racism against Koreans", but racist behavior is quite allowed in Japan. It is acceptable in that country to have signs saying "No foreigners allowed" and there are laws designed against minorities (see Ethnic issues in Japan). In fact, courts have generally ruled in favor of racist policies implemented by businesses, schools, and the government. This kind of thing does not happen in the United States or United Kingdom any more. Anyhow, what is so stupid about pointing out to someone their racist remarks? It's all quite cut and dry to me. Open your eyes.--Sir Edgar 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually becoming less and less acceptable in Japan as the foreign population increases. In fact, Koreans are much less susceptible to discrimination these days than other ethnic minorities, particularly if they were born in Japan. The richest man in the country was born Korean, and I have quite a few zainichi friends here who are working alongside Japanese people in big companies and generally being successful. It's almost like being Jewish in America: more of a joke than anything else.

On the legal front, it's true that Japan has never passed any anti-discrimination laws, but strictly speaking, all laws are race-neutral and you can sue for racial discrimination and collect damages (it's been done a few times by foreigners). The problem is that you can't get an injunction to stop the behavior, but that's more of a weakness in the court system than anything else (contempt of court does not exist in Japan). "No foreigners allowed" signs are very rare anyway, and you mostly see them in areas that have concentrations of American troops, Russian sailors, etc. with no idea of how to follow Japanese norms. - Sekicho 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad there's at least one other voice of reason here besides my own. As I pointed out, racism certainly exists in Japan, as it does everywhere to some degree. But anyone who claims it is "acceptable" or "quite allowed" in Japan has little more than a cursory knowledge of the country and its people. I have lived here on and off for 10 years and traveled the country from Hokkaido to islands off the Southern coast of Kyushu. I have never once encountered a sign that said "no foreigners allowed." I was refused an apartment several times about 15 years ago (for which there is no excuse of course) and I have had a grand total of one experience where I was told "Japanese only" upon walking into a restaurant. However, I was with several Japanese friends at the time and the owner ended up letting us eat there. It turns out that the restaurant was located close to a U.S. Marine base and the owner had had enough of drunken rowdy soldiers tearing up his restaurant. Go figure.

In fact, although one could never measure it, I would be willing to bet that while legal protections against racism are certainly stronger in the United States than Japan, racism among the general population in the U.S. is probably more widespread than it is in Japan. I have found that racism in Japan is more often motivated by ignorance and buffoonery than by outright hatred, as often seems to be the case in the United States.

Sir Edgar, dare I ask for citations or references to any of the cases where "courts have generally ruled in favor of racist policies implemented by businesses, schools, and the government", or are you just making claims based on what you believe to be the case?-Jefu 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your offering your personal experiences and opinions. Unfortunately, that is all that they are. The fact of the matter is, one could say Japan allows racism.

You seem to try to explain away situations when the reality is that without your Japanese friends, you would not have been allowed to eat at that restaurant. Isn't this so?

It isn't so. Come to Tokyo sometime. You'll find that you can get a table just about anywhere, even on your own, if you ask politely. - Sekicho 13:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never had trouble getting a table, but I know people who have.--Sir Edgar 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, just because you have not seen any signs, does that mean they do not exist?

They do exist (I admitted that above). I'm saying that they're rare, and very geographically limited. - Sekicho 13:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Japan being picked on? Is it a conspiracy? Why only Japan?

By the way, I think this self-appraisal as possibly the only other "voice of reason" should be avoided. There are some that might accuse the two of you of being merely "Japan apologists". In fact, do you think your behavior could resemble the Japanese trolls we've seen here, providing only anecdotal evidence while asking for "citations or references"? I hope not, but you just stated yourself that "one could never measure" legal protections against racism. So, why do you ask for me to prove it while providing no proof yourself?

Because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. Jefu is asking you to prove your assertion that something does exist—namely, precedent that condones racism. That's something you can actually demonstrate. And I would appreciate if you wouldn't throw around names: if you call me a "Japan apologist" I can just as easily call you a "Japan basher" and the debate does not change at all. - Sekicho 13:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I only said that because you have stated you might be on your Talk page, but I admit it was inappropriate. Anyhow, let's get away from personal references. My focus is on improving the quality and consistency of articles that I work on. If you can help me, that would be great. Thanks.--Sir Edgar 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I like the fact that you are trying to work with all parties, but we must realize that each and every one of us have biases and nobody can be appointed the judges.--Sir Edgar 00:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Sir Edgar--I appreciate your hard work around here, but you reeeeally need to take it down a notch. In particular, you need to stop threatening to have people banned. Wikipedia:Civility lists that as a "serious example" of incivility. I know you're frustrated, but getting angry at everyone and writing long paragraphs in your own defense doesn't make things any better. Just a thought; hopefully it'll save you from a few ulcers. Sekicho 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

i know you've worked hard on the japan article, & understand your frustrations. i'd have to agree with sekicho, though, to not feed the trolls and hope you're not discouraged from your contributions. some help may be at hand with the worst type of reverting vandalism, since a sockpuppet check has been requested. you might want to add a brief comment of your experience, any other sockpuppets and evidence at WP:RCU#Forestfarmer, because they don't check every request unless it looks really serious. let's cross our fingers, & hope everyone can get back to what we enjoy about wikipedia. Appleby 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Just noticed you were back. I had seen a quote by User:RickK and thought of you. "There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do." Hope you aren't too discouraged. And as always, let me know if I can ever help. Tortfeasor 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

JAPAN

Sir Edgar, user:220.212.100.227 made a major rewrite of Japan. I thought I should mention this and that I reverted because it was already a FA. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Warning on talk:Japan

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

I made a caution on the page. BUT, you did ignore the caution completely. Delete the comments which you attacked on user:Komdori and user:Questionfromjapan(me). And please apologize.--Questionfromjapan 00:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is this alleged "personal attack"? I can't see it. Sir Edgar doesn't usually make personal attacks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He suggested editors should ignore user:Komdori and me. It is an obvious personal attack since it has no relationship with the contents of the article itself. In addition, what is the meaning of "Sir Edgar doesn't usually make personal attacks"? "usually" does not make any sense. --Questionfromjapan 01:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questionfromjapan, you may need to look up again what a personal attack is. I merely stated the facts.--Sir Edgar 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You must check the personal attacks example 4.1. You stated me as a vandal and suggested the editors of the article to ignore me. It is an obvious personal attack and vandalism. And, did you really check my edit-history? I am not a vandal.--Questionfromjapan 14:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I never said you were a "vandal". In fact, I never even used the word "vandal" in my statement. Show me where I said that. If you fail to show me, then I suggest you apologize to me.--Sir Edgar 09:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not argue. It's really ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether it's explicit use or implicit use. Judging on the context of your talk, it is obvious that you treat me as a vandal and you suggested the editors in the article to ignore me. If it's not so, why did you placard my username in your talk? --Questionfromjapan 08:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy of India FAR

Hi

You look to be a contributor to this article, which is about to go into FARC unless we can get some input from economics people. A few of us, including me, have put a great effort into copy-editing and other improvements.

Can you assist? There are a number of unaddressed inline queries, and IMV the article needs more depth in a few places.

Tony 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is FARC? And how exactly can I help?--Sir Edgar 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop doing massive reverts in Japan

You are getting pointed finger from various different people. Don't do massive revert, discuss it in the talk page first; plus you are removing extra sections to make this article comprehensive and nice. What is your problem? 168.253.14.129 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you Kamosuke/HaradaSanosuke or Mythologia/Shougiku Wine? If so, you are on my ignore list.--Sir Edgar 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely not, don't do massive revert, ask the question in Japan talk about the revert, if you get consensus revert it, else don't even think about reverting back. You are being very disruptive to other editors buddy. 168.253.14.129 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the version you propose. It was not agreed in Talk. In fact, the reverts continued for a long time.--Sir Edgar 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop being hotheaded, decisive, you are pissing a lot of people off. Let the article change, stop deleting sections. Let it go, let it go.~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It looks like you are the only one who is upset. Whoever you are...--Sir Edgar 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Talk:Japan, don't every think of reverting again. It will always be reverted back to what it was. Don't even try!! Thank you. It will be waste of your fingers. 168.253.21.234 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Content

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Japan. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. There is no point in edit warring. I admit there are several people engaging in this edit war, but it seems clear (from the variety of people who are complaining) and from the fact that changes you are making are clearly being discussed, that removing the content and doing the same, unpopular, massive revision is harmful. LactoseTI^T 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems I can say the same of the version proposed which deleted significant content.--Sir Edgar 01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I quit.

I do not believe Wikipedia provides enough protection for the users who actually contribute to its articles. I have seen my work torn down to pieces by anonymous accounts and sockpuppets.

And I don't care to participate in a democracy of idiots either. I'm sick of having to read "No, you are!" posts. Many of you whom I've had arguments with are simply not intelligent enough, not literate in the English language enough, and not reasonable enough for me to deal with.

My work has gone underappreciated and I've even been the subject of personal attacks. Where does Wikipedia step in? It doesn't. I honestly wanted to help make better articles and I think I did. Alas, to no avail.

I'm tired. I quit.--Sir Edgar 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Even now months after you have quit, I notice your hard work and comments on various articles. It did not go under-appreciated by all. I certainly do understand some of the frustration. It is incredible how hard and long one has to fight to make Wikipedia a better place. It is sad, but that fight never really ends. If you ever decide to give Wikipedia another try, you're always welcome. Bendono 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me. I still come and visit Wikipedia once in a while to get information, but it upsets me when I see such poor editing and a very biased application of NPOV. I've been tempted to come back, but I know it's an uphill battle. Too much work that can be torn down in an instant by a vandal. Or a coalition...--Sir Edgar 23:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add some encouragement in addition to what Bendono said. You have a lot to contribute and we all understand it can be incredible frustrating dealing with vandals and other types of miscreants on Wikipedia. I hope you have a relaxing break and can come back refreshed :) Shell ^babelfish 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your support. I'm just not sure I can handle some of the people here, especially when they are working together. There are a group of people here who would rather censure than see the truth. I've noticed persistent biased application of NPOV here with certain articles. I tried to stay away and not edit at all, but I think I lost it with a couple of things I've seen again.--Sir Edgar 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Japan, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

The attack in question can be found here. // Sasuke-kun27 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been the subject of personal attacks over and over here. Nothing was done. No action. In this case, I did not direct it to a specific person. So, SHUT THE HELL UP!--Sir Edgar 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your final warning. If you continue to vandalize pages on Wikipedia, make inappropriate edits or personal attacks, including inappropriate or offensive edit summaries, or continue to cause problems in other ways, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely. // Sasuke-kun27 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Like that has stopped people from doing just that to me? LOL. This is such a joke...

Go ahead. Make my day. DO YOU THINK I CARE ANYMORE???--Sir Edgar 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The user above is "gone" now, but I thought it was hilarious that he wrote as if he were some Wike super-administrator - he was just another volunteer editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If they also made personal attacks toward you, they have likely also been warned. Eiyuu Kou 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Endroit 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can do whatever I want. I have not violated any Wikipedia rules. In fact, I think you have violated many more serious ones such as NPOV, Weasel Words, etc.--Sir Edgar 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edgar, in your own words - "I can do whatever I want." John Smith's 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought you believed you were better than me.--Sir Edgar 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe myself to be "better" than people I haven't met in real life. John Smith's 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just quit you fag.

Nigga Bitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.73.102 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-10 12:34:02

Thanks for your nice message, JABA. But I will not just because of people like you.--Sir Edgar 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahhah, looks like someone in Sydney, Australia doesn't like you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm getting more and more fans every day.--Sir Edgar 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You should start a vandalism counter on your front page as well. John Smith's 07:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

most prestigious universities in Japan

Hi. Maybe a link to the Tokyo 6 Universities page somewhere? Just an idea... --RJCraig 05:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if mention of the Tokyo 6 is required in the main Japan article, even though three of the top universities in Japan are in this league. A worthy suggestion though.--Sir Edgar 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

When you give them, can you please use the relevant template to make them comply with the usual standards. If you could update the recent links you provided I'd appreciate it - thanks. John Smith's 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

You're a fine example of the education system in Japan. 8)--Sir Edgar 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am always amazing about your continuing passion for creating history. Zone101 00:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

For a moment, I thought you were going to mimic me like Mythologia... Anyhow, if you think I create history, then I'm terrified at what you think true history is. I have citations and references for all the content I add in. I don't know what you're doing besides perhaps referring to propoganda.--Sir Edgar 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are creating 'Glorious Korean History'. I think you don't have 'NPOV' about Korean facts. What you are clamed for all the content are the 'NPOV'. I don't know you have the ability of having 'NPOV'. But these conversations will be treatments for you and (perhaps to me) to take 'NPOV' back to articles. Zone101 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting in facts that have been erased or neglected. I don't know what you're doing, but it seems harmful.--Sir Edgar 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'NPOV' can be broken by facts. I understood that you can't understand it. Thanks.Zone101 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I understand that you don't understand what NPOV means. You're welcome.--Sir Edgar 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Edgar

Hello, Sir Edgar. I'd like to respond to your interpreting me as being "holier than thou" or a passive-agressive for honestly expressing concern that bias from one side not be replaced with bias from another side. I care what sort of impression Wikipedia's editors give its readers, and I think it gives a negative impression when edit-warriors battle out of obvious national or ideological bias, without even making a visible effort at hiding that bias, over a major article like a country-profile. Why don't I edit at that article? Because I find these political/ideological/ethnic/religious articles to be the battlegrounds of biased mobs. And I dislike mobs, no matter what their cause, right or wrong. I avoid them both online and in life. I happily associate with people of all backgrounds who are able to put aside their petty differences to work for a common good. I believe the Wikipedia community, in general, is made up of such people. If that makes me "holier-than-thou," then so be it. Dekkappai 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to Talk page to indirectly insult me and then proclaim that you are somehow better, Reverend Dekkappai. It's obvious though by your attacks that you are not unbiased as you claim.--Sir Edgar 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see how you can interpret the above as any kind of attack on you, unless it hit something in your conscience. You told me at the talk page that you don't care about my personal tragedies. Well, I do care about the personal tragedies of others. I hope you can work out whatever experiences you have had that have caused you not to. I believe you will feel better for it. I have benefitted from our dialogue, Sir Edgar, and I hope you might do the same. Best wishes. Dekkappai 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing people of being "edit-warriors" with "obvious national or ideological" agendas. Why would you mention that on my Talk page, but to insinuate that I am one. What have you done to improve the article? Have you added any content? Edited it for grammar? Put in new citations? I don't appreciate your whining and complaining and petty attacks, while trying to make it seem that you are better than others.--Sir Edgar 04:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Japan

Please refrain from making comments such as "consensus does not matter to me" (see [4]). Wikipedia runs by consensus, and blatant disregard for it is not acceptable. While it's fine to have opinions which differ from those of other editors, if there is a difference in opinion, please discuss the topic on the appropriate talk page until consensus is reached, and then make the appropriate edit(s). Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reminder. However, can you tell me why consensus is important when anyone can edit and revert articles? This seems like a more central philosophy of Wikipedia than building consensus, as I have learned with my battles against vandals and sockpuppet accounts last year. Anyhow, I am only concerned with the truth, not consensus. Honestly, I don't believe that the consensus of two, three, or four people is very important. What I do think is important is making sure that all the articles I work on are accurate, well-written, and complete. Regardless, how do you know which version is the more appropriate one? That cannot be decided by consensus. And who is to decide if there is consensus or not?

I appreciate your comments.--Sir Edgar 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo naming dispute

Hey Sir Edgar, another Dokdo naming dispute has arisen, & RM has taken place. Please check archive for previous discussions & pariticipate in the vote. Thanks. I'm also going to note all others who participated in the previous poll. (Wikimachine 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Mimana

I noticed you put a redirect page from Mimana to the Gaya Confederacy of Korea. Mimana traditionally refers to a separate colony on the Korean peninsula known as "Inma" by the Koreans. I was wondering why you put this redirect here and who I could see to get an actual article (or even translation from the Japanese article here: "http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BB%BB%E9%82%A3") --Watchreader 20:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Western world

tell me please, in how many countries have you been to? Have you ever had the possibility to compare standard of living in Germany or Austria with the one in Slovenia or Poland?

your point of view expressed in discussion about western world is ridiculous, and shows that you have no idea about the world that surrounds you. Derski (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

and please excuse me, that my oppinion is not NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derski (talk • contribs) 11:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

Hi! I'm sorry to revert your edit again. But please find the source first. Take a look at this ref. Read "THE JAPANESE ROLE IN KOREA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" and "The Emergence of a Modern Society". At least electrical power was built by Japan. That is why I am asking you to provide the source. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the link that you have provided. I am just adding an interesting and important fact about Korea's capital Seoul that is true and relevant. There were efforts by the Koreans to modernize and if it weren't for the assassination of Empress Myeongseong, Korea may have likely become an industrialized country on its own. Anyhow, please don't delete content without good reason. You need to state the reason why you are deleting the sentence that I have included. Cheers.--Sir Edgar (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw you provided the ref. for your addition. If you had included it with your first edit, no editors should not have wasted their time. Please be careful from now on. BTW, the link you mentioned above is not provided by me. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed with many of the Korea/Japan articles, some people have been requesting references for some things while not for other things. This is often done in a hypocritical way. For example, in the Korea under Japanese rule article, there are numerous references to Japan's "contribution" to the modernization of Korea without citations. However, any hint that Korea's endeavour to modernize on its own is challenged vehemently. Another example is that the even mention of Korean influence on Japanese culture prompts the demand for a reference while Chinese influence is clearly accepted and there is no "citation" request. Hmmm...--Sir Edgar (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate pages: Ebisen and Kappa Ebisen

You appear to have created what is essentially the same page twice, at Ebisen and then a few minutes later at Kappa Ebisen. (Note that a user has since then proposed Ebisen for deletion.) If this was an error, you might have nominated the first page for speedy deletion before creating the second, or better yet moved the original page to the new name. It would have been better to make one of these pages a redirect to the other, rather than including identical content at both names. If you have a preference for which name remains on the Wiki, you may want to remove the dated PROD (if Ebisen is the more appropriate name); in either case, you should address this issue on the talk page of the remaining page. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. Sorry.--Sir Edgar (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Apolo Ohno

Before writing about the "controversy" after the 1500 meters race, please join the discussion about the faultiness of the articles used to source that information (Yellow journalism). oncamera^(t) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Reuters article only sources his quote. The Korea Times article is not reliable. oncamera^(t) 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion on the talkpage for the actual article now. Thank you, oncamera^(t) 03:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style, etc.

I want to say thanks for helping improve the article and I would like you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, especially the Criticism and praise and some of the ideas on Wikipedia:Coatrack. The article needs to maintain focus on Ohno and avoid being sidetracked. There are other articles available for more detailed writing this topic such as here or here. Also, The manual of style notes You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense and Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman which leads me to say the version I wrote today best exemplifies the MOS. Be considerate that his article is face with very high traffic during the Olympics and we have to do our best to be conservative and get it right. oncamera^(t) 16:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah

Actually, an user Huangdi went and changed it to another version, then the IP posted a discussion titled "Incorrect sourcing" on the talk page and then Christine commented and I went along with everyone's new suggestions. That isn't a controversy worthy of writing about and you're the one who really wants it included. Wikipedians have a bad habit of wanting to include every detail of something whether or not it's really meaningful. See WP:NTEMP and Wikinews. Also, if you're interested in Short Track, why not try to improve some of the Korean athlete's articles? I can't read the Korean news articles very well, but I know you can help. oncamera^(t) 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this edit

This is the edit in question to Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Given the combination of the edit summary and mentioning another Wikipedian in your edit text, it certainly gives the appearance of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Would you care to explain how that edit is a positive contribution to the article? —C.Fred (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your next edit had a similar edit summary, removed sourced text, and left a vague unsourced line in its place. That edit is disruptive. I encourage you to contribute constructively to the article, but if it becomes necessary to protect the article (or the encyclopedia as a whole) against further disruption, your account may be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you the boss of Wikipedia?!! LOL. Seriously, funny. Try to ban me!!! Try it!!!--Sir Edgar (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll just keep coming back and editing.--Sir Edgar (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Olympics ladies' figure skating article

I've started a discussion on Talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Please join the discussion there before continuing your edits on the article. Kirin13 (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)