Talk:Suki/Archive 1

Is this "Suki" religion real?
Is this "Suki" religion real? I HIGHLY doubt it, but if the person pushing it wants to argue it, he or she should do so on this page. WhisperToMe 00:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A religion with over 500,000 members should have more than one person talking about it. I think this is just an attempt of someone trying to make themselves feel important since they have no other reason to feel good.

Good day WhisperToMe. SUKI (tm), always properly spelled in UPPERCASE, the (tm) denoting 'trademark', is very real, and has an estimated 500,000 members worldwide, mainly in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and the People's Republic of China. SUKI (tm)'s expansion efforts are now focussing on North America, in particular, targetting individuals who are disgruntled with the traditional concepts of 'religion' as they apply to old-world religions. SUKI (tm) is not an old-world religion and its title, 'The New World Religion (tm)' aptly reflects it.

SUKI (tm) can be regarded as a 'corporate religion', a very unique concept. Currently most proseltyzing is done in person and through wireless telephony in Asia, but a major expansion into Internet-based media is planned, hence the impending launch of the new www.SUKIreligion.org website.

As with most religions historically, organized or unorganized, there exists a group of individuals who self-appoint themselves to spread blasphemous messages. I urge the community to reject the efforts of these individuals and to allow for a proper definition of SUKI (tm) to be instated.

Thank you.

--- http://www.google.com/search?q=Suki+Religion+&hl=en&lr=&start=70&sa=N shows only an urban dictionary page on it. The religion ain't real, nor would it have over "500,000" members. WhisperToMe 03:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

With all due respect, SUKI (tm) is not heavily publicized on sites such as 'Google'. It is very close-minded and ignorant to expect religious texts to be published on the Google website. With over 500,000 dues-paying members worldwide, SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm) is quite real, and in the coming days, months, and years, more information will be placed on the Internet as appropriate.

Perhaps try your Google search term using the proper spelling of 'SUKI (tm)' which is always in UPPERCASE. Your search results may be better.

---

No, it would be publicized on sites like "Google" if it were real.

And I still don't get much - Google is case sensitive. WhisperToMe 05:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Ummm, because SUKI (tm) is a trademarked religion, sites like "Google" are effectively forbidden from publishing details of it without the express written consent of SUKI (tm). "Google" is just one site on the vast world-wide-web as well, and is definitely not an authoritative source of information. With slogans such as "The New World Religion (tm)", and Élite (tm), SuperÉlite (tm), and VIP (tm) status, and an estimated 500,000 dues-paying, card-carrying worshipping members worldwide, SUKI (tm) is clearly a religion, The New World Religion (tm), and to deny its existence is to promote blasphemy

That is impossible to do - people would still mention "SUKI" if it was real. WhisperToMe 04:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Impossible? How so? Google, as well as all SUKI (tm) members are bound by copyright law, and they must obtain the explicit consent of SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm) in order to publish any details of the religion on the internet. SUKI (tm) is very real, it is The New World Religion (tm), with an estimated 500k+ members worldwide, mostly in Asia. I am completely astounded at the level of blasphemous behaviour that is present in what should be an otherwise uncontroverted definition.

I've removed the text about "SUKI (tm)" again. Here are a few reasons why it can't be here:


 * Unverifiable information is not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * In the unlikely case that what you're saying is true, then talking about SUKI requires the explicit permission of some organization. If this is the case, it can't go on Wikipedia, because all information on Wikipedia has to be freely redistributable under the GNU Free Documentation License.
 * It seems likely to be completely made up. I suppose the many members are "in Asia" as an explanation for why nobody has ever encountered them. Asia is a very big place, so you could even tell Asian Wikipedians that they're just in a different part of Asia. Very convenient.

RSpeer 05:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax... no need to argue with a jokester anymore
This is obviously just a dumb hoax. If this actually got a registered trademark, like he claims, it would have tons of records up about it accessible to Google. The claims that copyright means no one is allowed to talk about it online are nonsense, as people can always talk aboot copyrighted things, and this would be extremely noteworthy (in a "look what these pathetic people are doing kind of way") so it would be trivial to dig up information on them. DreamGuy 01:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * A search of the US Patent and Trademark office records reveals the following active trademarks for "suki" (any capitalization)
 * A trademark for non-medicated skin care products
 * A trademark for eyeglasses and sunglasses
 * Nothing for religions. Looks like a hoax to me. --Carnildo 04:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The only web-page I can find is this. Having a very attractive girl on the page does not make up for a transparent hoax ("the world's most popular religion") which has also infected wikibooks. Rd232 08:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It all points to a hoaxer in Saskatchewan. A Whois on the posters of this Suki stuff, and, shows a SaskTel origin. One pitz put it on the Urban Dictionary. The only Usenet reference  was posted by a "ztip guy" with a sasktel.net address, who also posts extensively on Saskatchewan topics. A "pitz", again, tried to promote it on IRC.


 * Better still, a little Google search on www.catull.us led in an interesting direction. It's fairly unusual (ahem) for a major world religion's website to host pictures of the Janet Jackson Superbowl breast-baring incident: Brought to you by SUKI (tm) - The New World Religion, in coöperation with lordpil-networks. #cpu and #janetjackson on EFNET. See here or here. Conclusively busted, yes? Tearlach 19:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What next?
If history is any indication, this guy will come back in a couple of weeks and add the religion hoax again. What can we do about it? He kept doing it when there was a clear consensus against it; this RfC has just made even more of a consensus. It seems like the next step is arbitration, but that seems too grandiose for something this stupid. What's the appropriate next step? RSpeer 16:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

No Claim of a "Registered" Trademark"
SUKI (tm) is a major international religion, a religion that I am a member of. Just because many of the above posters seem to have a high level of ignorance does not justify their total disclaiming of the existence of SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm).

Go to the USPTO and do a search on "Catholicism". Or "Buddhism". See? You can use any sources you want to craft the arguments you want to. Why don't you actually travel to Asia and find one of those 500k+ members of SUKI (tm) and ask for yourself? Why don't you actually attend a SUKI (tm) conference, periodically held in North America? It would seem to me that your goal is to suppress information on a religion that quite frankly is not old-world like the religion you probably are a member of. I can't post information on SUKI (tm) here because you guys quite simply insist on being so disruptive that any information I enter is simply truncated by abusive reverts and other blasphemous activity. (unsigned by User:65.182.28.167)

Anyone with a basic understanding of trademark and intellectual property law would understand that formal registration with the USPTO or the various copyright registries around the world is not necessary to claim a 'trademark'. The doctrine of first-use applies here. Since SUKI (tm) does not claim to be a 'registered trademark' (a title specifically protected by law, given the (r) designation), many of the arguments advanced against the validity of SUKI (tm) as a major international religion are quite obviously baseless and without merit.

As I suggested earlier, SUKI (tm) (a major international RELIGION, not a 'lifestyle' as the ignorant poster below would suggest) is just as legitimate as the Catholic religion, or the Scientology religion. But as an analogy, if one were to set up, say an abortion clinic with the title "Catholic Church Abortion Clinic", a successful legal action from the Church would be almost a certainty.

19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I call it, or what? (By the way, I'd discourage responding to the anon's "arguments" above; since it's still thoroughly clear that SUKI is fake, arguing about it is just feeding a troll.)

Anyway, anyone got any ideas on what to do next to prevent this article from being defaced by a hoax again? RSpeer 19:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Rspeer, the best way to prevent the article from being defaced is for you to stop posting to it. SUKI (tm) is NOT FAKE, SUKI (tm) is a major international religion.

And besides, the official spelling of "SUKI (tm)", is "SUKI (tm)". Not "Suki", not 'suki'. SUKI (tm) is always in UPPERCASE, and it would be greately appreciated if you would spell it correctly. SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm). (unsigned by User:196.40.43.78, showing off his impressive range of distinct IPs)

There is no way I can think of to block this user since he comes from so many different IPs. I believe he's been at this for about 8 months now - so he's not going to go away. I'm putting this up on Requests for page protection to try to get the page locked. There aren't going to be any new definitions of Suki anytime soon. Cmouse 04:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no need to protect it unless he keeps sticking suki in the page. --Carnildo 05:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He does. Even after the RFC. Cmouse 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected this page due to ongoing vandalism. Please notice that: 1) Protection is not endorsement of the current version; 2) This is a temporary measure, and the page will not stay protected forever. This action has been automatically logged and registered by me here. If you have any objection to the temporary protection of this article, however, please elaborate your point on this talk page. I would also like to encourage the parties involved in the issue that led to this protection to work out their differences on this page. Please remember to be civil, polite and thorough in your comments. Remember: the sooner the issue is resolved, the sooner the protection can be lifted. Thank you. Redux 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedians that have posted here thus far must be fairly sad individuals, to wit: they believe that the major world religion, SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm) is a 'hoax' when there is not a shred of evidence to support such an assertion.

With over 500k+ members worldwide, SUKI (tm) is a major international religion, The New World Religion (tm). If you want to deny facts, why don't you start an 'ignorantpedia.org' and keep your 'hoax' garbage and conspiracy theories off of the main Wikipedia. Thank you. (unsigned post by 66.222.228.34)

Aikido
This new definition checks out with Google: suki aikido. Tearlach 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

suki is not real.

What we need from you - final attempt
Hello anon of many IPs. I'd really like to get this issue cleared up soon. I'm tired of reverting this page, I've got better things to do.


 * I'd like you to get a username. It would help the discussion and any likely follow up to this matter immensely.  We believe that you use the username pitz and "ztip guy" other places online and both these names are available.  Just click the "log in" link in the top left of this webpage and register for an account. It helps you stand behind your statements and it gives you more credibility.  It also makes it easier for us to leave you messages. Of course, part of the deal is that being logged in makes you accountable for your actions, so you will not be able to use the username for long if you commit vandalism (see below) with it.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and everything here has to be verifiable. You seem to be under the impression that we must prove you wrong - we must provide proof that your religion does not exist or is not notable.  That's actually not the way this site works; you must provide the proof that something exists or is notable for it to be included.  You've compared yourself to other religions.  If you look at articles such as Islam, Christianity and even Scientology they provide many references.  A good reference is a published book or article; reputable, non-publicly-editable third-party sites would also be acceptable.  A site provided by your religion even with actual content is not a good enough reference, especially when google returns no valid references.  I'm asking you to provide one of these references the next time you edit this site or I will begin to take serious action against you.


 * A Request for Comment has been filed regarding your edits and come up overwhelmingly against your changes. It has also raised some points which you have failed to address.  Continueing to edit the article page against the consensus that has been established constitutes vandalism.  This is why you are being accused of such. If you want to edit the article page at this point, you need to get consensus here on the talk page first. This will involve convincing others that the information you are adding is valid, verifiable, and notable.


 * Why do we disbelieve you, in a nutshell? Because we have asked you questions about your assertions about SUKI (tm), and you have refused to answer them.


 * Please do not call editors names such as "ignorant". This sort of behavior will not get anyone to listen to you and is not acceptable on this site.


 * I really don't have time to debate you anymore when it goes nowhere. I have tried to  assume good faith.  However, you never answer any of our questions or points; instead, you change the topic to irrelevant things that do not relate to your edits, like the fact that "Catholicism" is not a trademark. In the future, if you continue to do nothing but make attacks on editors or make empty assertions without references, I will not respond and I suggest that other editors do the same. Continuing to argue over petty points will not help the situation.


 * I am seriously considering taking you and your editing pattern to arbitration.  I would really prefer not to, and would welcome any reasonable suggestion otherwise (especially from other editors).  I suggest you read the links I have provided for you in this argument and think before you respond.  I will soon post a message on your various IP's talk pages asking you to come and address this comment.  Please acknowledge this message.

Thanks a lot! Cmouse 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to the Response
''Thank you for your reasonable attitude. It is greatly appreciated. ''

Thank you. It's usually the best way to get things done on this site.

'' I am not pitz or sukiguy. ''

Sukiguy is the name I have been using to refer to the collection of ips who edit this page. It was used in lieu of a username since no one defending SUKI (tm) has registered.

I do not have a problem getting a username and will look into doing so

Thanks!

but please understand I am not the person you've already had conversations with.

Actually, the outcome of this is pretty much the same regardless of whether you are all the same person or different people. I like to think of this as a pattern of edits rather than a person.

'' I understand your point about other religions. Please also understand that SUKI (tm) is not just a religion, it can also be a lifestyle - so grouping it with religions like Islam or Scientology as the 'top level' association may not be appropriate. ''

Right, however, many other wikipedia pages have these sorts of references. Take a look at: Intelligent design or Led Zeppelin.

''I understand your desire to validate SUKI (tm) with web references, but in this somewhat unique instance there will truly be very little found on the web about SUKI (tm) because it is so new to the U.S. Only a very small number of SUKI (tm) practicioners use the internet, for reasons which may become apparent in the course of settling this issue. ''

The internet is all over the world and not just in the United States. Feel free to give us refernces in other languages, we'll be able to find someone to translate them. Also, even if the majority of SUKI (tm) practitioners don't use the internet they would have been studied by researchers. Said researchers would have published papers on the religion. A link or cite to one of these articles would also work. Otherwise SUKI (tm) members will have to wait until such a source exists to include the religion on Wikipedia.

Thanks again. Cmouse 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Astroturfing
Thanks, Cmouse. I took another look and the "SUKI" thing looks like a pretty obvious case of astroturfing. If this guy persists we'll have to find a way to deal with the problem. Meanwhile since this is just a disambig I'll protect. --Tony Sidaway Talk 09:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. From what I've seen and read about it, even if this is a legitimate enterprise, the action of putting a page on it here would seem to constitute corporate promotion; since apparently the practitioners are the only ones who know about it. Still 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

About SUKI (tm)
I'll give you a tip. -- Femmina 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (WhisperToMe adds: It's a troll site that alleges that Jewish people committed 9/11)

That's just some dumb troll site WhisperToMe 22:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares about the site itself as it's pretty dumb, obviously fake, full of badly written lies and unfunny jokes. I posted a redirect to it instead of a direct link to avoid increasing its pagerank on google. What you should do is click on the link and look at the list of sponsors. -- Femmina 07:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's editors' shortsightedness will bring embarassment to the organization.
I can tell you as one of the North American practicioners of SUKI(tm) this: it is extremely frustrating that Wiki's editors refuse to recognize our religion. I have found this page and the discussion contained within and I suppose it explains why SUKI(tm) is not correctly included along with various explanations and expansions on the word "suki."

At some point, Wiki will have some serious egg on its face because of this. Call your local news outlet, folks.

72.154.143.106 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Take all of these into consideration, all of you who are alledged followers of SUKI&trade;, and your argument may be more valid. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 10:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If what you are saying is actually true, then Wikipedia will be likely to believe you if:
 * 1) You create an account. This stops us from having to chase around IP addresses, makes you considered more reliable, and is generally much better than being a revolving IP address.
 * 2) You cite your sources, or somehow prove that SUKI&trade; actually exists and is not a blatant hoax. This is by far the most important of the things you can do.
 * 3) You submit good contributions to the Wikipedia, instead of spending all your time arguing for a cause with no proof.
 * I wouldn't bother feeding the troll. As I said above, it's mighty odd to find the website for a religion www.sukireligion.org hosting on a subpage www.sukireligion.org/janet material relating to Janet Jackson Super Bowl breast-baring incident. Tearlach 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do the Wiki editors believe all of these SUKI(tm) entries are from one person?
I am perplexed. I have arrived at this page just now looking for information on SUKI(tm) and have found this page. The Wiki editors have come to the conclusion that all of these comments are from one person. How can they? There are at least two. I suspect three. There are thousands of SUKI(tm) followers in the world, so there's an excellent chance it's more than that, even.

I am very disappointed in the short-sightedness and draconian policies instituted by the Wikipedia people. It seems that if your religion does not fit into the neat square piggyhole offered by the Wikipedia, it is unacceptable. Furthermore, Wiki is deigned 'fake' and all sorts of other derogatory terms simply because the SUKI(tm) religion is not documented on the internet. Wiki editors, there is a reason for this... have you ever considered that? Huh?

In any case, let it be known, Wiki nazis, that I am speaking with my own free voice and mind. I will not stand idly by while you try to kill my religion with ne'er-do-well-talk, derogatory terms, and flippant comments designed to create doubt in the hearts and minds of your readers. Frankly I expected more of this organization. I am EXTREMELY disappointed.

SUKU(tm) will be added to the Wiki - it's just a matter of when, not IF.

Farewell.


 * We don't believe you are all the same person. We just talk to one person at a time. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is in! SUKI (tm) NOT a HOAX!
So now we have SUKI (tm) members from Mexico, Canada, The United States of America, and Costa Rica checking in. Further evidence that SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm) is a legitimate major international religion with over 1M members worldwide. Rspeer/Whispertome/Tearlach, it is time to give up and just admit the existence of SUKI (tm). You might consider taking a course at your local community college, or even talk to your local religious authorities to learn more about SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm), major international religion.

Tearlach, your constant reverts are unnacceptable. Now I wouldn't expect someone who claims a "morbid fascination with controversial 19th century characters (religious, political, and medical)" on his/her talk page, to talk sensibly about late 20th and early 21st-century RELIGION, but your bias towards old-world religion is showing through, and showing strongly. Please stop vandalizing the talk page, or at least contribute something of value to it. Thank you.


 * Or of course it could be a widespread hoax (like WoW imitators), and until we have secondary evidence (a widely-published book about SUKI&trade;, for example), that is what we at Wikipedia must assume. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 14:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiabilty
You're in a pit; stop digging. You can muster all the sockpuppets you want, but until you produce something that passes the tests of Reliable sources and Verifiability, it will always be binned. Tearlach 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence is piling up
The evidence of SUKI (tm) being a major world religion with over 1 million members and growing rapidly is piling up. Canada, United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, Dominican Republic -- all home to some of SUKI (tm)'s over 1 million members. As a major world religion, SUKI (tm) continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Forgive the SUKI (tm) members from Latin America -- their English isn't the greatest.

64.110.251.69 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.
Well, the evidence is not just piling up, it's spilling over the edges and all over the floor here at the Wikipedia. BTW, ever since someone mentioned that the history page shows lots of reverts and edits by Wiki editors, I have tracked that page to see overzealots like Teacherlach and Graeme remove tons of SUKI(tm) references. Simply put, they appear not to want people to include SUKI(tm) in the reference. It's become personal for them. They will not be satisfied until all references to SUKI(tm) have been removed.

There's only one word which fits here: U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E.

Now that we have people from Latin America, Mexico, and the Bahamas checking in, Wiki's Verifiability standards have been met. For crying out loud, 6 different countries? The Wiki overzealots probably still suspect that it's person! LOL!

I think it's time for a new direction. It's time we escalate this matter and go over the heads of the editors who continue to censor and attempt to apply their own religious standards to this public Wikipedia. Please advise on the process of Editor Complaints. We (the SUKI(tm) group) are ready to take the next step and file complaints with the appropriate persons in the Wiki organization. Graeme/Teacherlach/etc., please do not reply or make any edits to this page except to provide contact information for the persons we need to speak with. Also, be advised that your positions of power within the Wiki organization are now at risk. Tread lightly. Thank you.

-unsigned edit by 


 * Complain all you like. The standards of verifiability have not been met. Read Verifiability again. You (singly or collectively) have been told repeatedly what's required. Produce reputable published third-party sources. Even the website www.sukireligion.org is defunct now. Tearlach 11:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tearlach, I believe I was being very clear when I asked you only to reply with contact information for us to escalate the matter. We have been very patient, and for the most part, cordial (I won't condone some of the comments made by others) and the time has come for reciprocation. I'd prefer an email address, ideally. Again, please only respond with this information and no editorial of any kind. Thank you.

-unsigned edit by 

Here is your "contact information" for how to escalate a content dispute: Requests for comment.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We've already had a request for comment on this page - I did one a while back. It concluded that Verifiability had not been met. You (collectively or seperately) can do another if you'd like but it's unlikely you'll get a different opinion since the situation hasn't changed. Cmouse 20:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the light of the latest repetion, I've posted a report of the Suki saga to Long term abuse. Tearlach 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?
Can this talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and unprotect it. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)