This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Syngmung (talk | contribs) at 13:38, 28 May 2013 (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:38, 28 May 2013 by Syngmung (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is Oda Mari's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
RE: Nagisa Oshima edits
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can you tell me which part violates the "neutral point principle" in the vassal state
Hello, Oda Mari. Thank you for your comments. Can you tell me which part of my edit is not neutral? But I think the content you put down is indeed biased. You said the central government's troops "invaded". The term "invaded" itself is biased. Moreover, the way it describes things is inaccurate. The PRC troops entered Tibet and central government's administration was reestablished under the 17 Article Treaty 十七条协议. Later, part of the Tibet regional officials fled in 1959. But you said "PRC troops entered and forced them to flee". Your edit is biased at best and malicious at worst. Can we come back to FACT? I just added facts. Please show me concrete evidence that the facts I show was wrong. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerRat (talk • contribs) 06:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! Welcome to en:WP. Because your addition was only the Chinese POV. The rest of the world does not think so. If you think it was not an invasion, please provide non-Chinese reliable sources in English, use the article talk page and ask for consensus to editors. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me which part I put in the 2010 Diaoyu Boat Collision is not neutral?
The original sentence said "Japanese administration". This itself is biased. The undertone is that Japanese is administrating Diaoyu Islands. I added a statement made by the Chinese spokesman for foreign affairs: China never recognizes such an "administration". What' s wrong with it? I just added the FACT. The fact is that the Chinese spokesman showed explicit objections. How can you put everything biased towards the Japanese government. The article content itself violates the neutral point principle. I also added the captain's name, 詹其雄。 What's wrong with it and you deleted it? Look forward to your reply. The article is highly biased. It violates Wiki's neutral point principle. Would you please let me know how to bring this issue up and let more people involved to discuss? Or would you please let me know how to complain your biased edits? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerRat (talk • contribs) 06:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
- The article is about the boat collision, not about the Senkaku Islands dispute. Adding the Chinese claim on the article is inappropriate and not NPOV. It is also thought not NPOV to call the article "2010 Diaoyu Boat Collision" as the most common name of the islands is Senkaku Islands in English speaking countries. If you disagree with me use the article talk page. But please read the past talk first. See also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands and its related pages. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Oda Mari, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Japan talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Misplaced Pages, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The Emperor's Speech
Looks good, thanks.198.228.197.36 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military
What do you think about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military? It seems every thing should be hidden.--Syngmung (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)