User talk:FiG8

Geisha
Hi, and thanks for your message. There's a couple of problems with the material you would like to include, but the principal one is that you haven't provided a reliable secondary source to support the claim. Sayuki's own website is a primary source and not sufficient - is there a mainstream media outlet that backs up the claim, or perhaps an academic paper? I'm not suggesting the claim is (or isn't ) true, simply that without something to verify it, it shouldn't be included in the article.

If you feel strongly that the material should go in the article as is, I'd ask you to first raise it at Talk:Geisha first so that a consensus can be reached either way. Euryalus (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If Sayuki has been the subject of thousands of media mentions as you suggest, you should have no difficulty in finding reliable sources to support the text you'd like to include. So far you've been adding it without sources - if you include some of the ones you mentioned the problem will be addressed. For the correct format for adding sources, have a look at WP:CITE.


 * Re Sayuki being an academic - self-published sources are not acceptable, as they are primary rather than secondary. WP:PSTS gives some guidance on the problems with primary sources - they can be used to reference minor points (someone's favourite colour and so on) but not anything significant or controversial.


 * I'm posting this here and also at your IP address as I don't know which one you'll be using next. If you prefer messages at one or the other location please let me know. Euryalus (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I was the first to object, let me also be the first to say thanks for adding the references for the Sayuki paragraph in the Geisha article. Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Sayuki
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sayuki, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Sayuki appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sayuki has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest concerns
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Sayuki article
Your repeated and unexplained removal of valid material from the Sayuki article is now becoming disruptive and has been reverted as vandalism. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia in this way, you will be blocked from editing. DAJF (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FiG8, could I ask that you discuss the changes you want to make on the article talk page instead of simply reverting to your preferred version. The material you're removing is sourced and relatively uncontroversial, and there seems so far to be consensus to keep it. As the author and major contributor to the article, your views on why the text should be removed would be appreciated. Euryalus (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fiona Graham is an academic with a biography far beyond Sayuki, her current role. It makes no sense at all to delete this entry. When The Terminator entry was created on Wikipedia, was Arnold Schwarzegger's entry deleted, and his entire identity subsumed into The Terminator? No, both entries exist on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiG8 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You've been removing Fiona Graham's name and birthpalce from the Sayuki article, even though Sayuki is Fiona Graham. The fact that Graham is also potentially notable for other activities doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether the Sayuki article should mention Graham's name. Either way, let's continue this discussion at Talk:Sayuki - Euryalus (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Shell  babelfish 00:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Graham has not disappeared and become only Sayuki. Rowan Atkinson did not disappear and become only Mr. Bean! There is NO precedent on Wikipedia for you removing Fiona Graham's entry which has been there for years.

Sayuki did not skip the maiko stage. There is no "maiko" stage in Tokyo. Maiko is a Kyoto word and it states that clearly in the "geisha" entry on Wikipedia. Therefore there is no such thing as a maiko stage in Tokyo. As I have pointed out Sayuki went through the normal training for Tokyo and it is offensive to suggest otherwise.

Sayuki is a living person and what you are doing with your edits is offensive and damaging to her career. Geisha do NOT reveal their names normally, and do not emphasise their background, which is why Sayuki does not want her whole academic CV up there and her books. Please consider what you are doing to the life of the person you are editing about when you edit.


 * It might help you to know that you can sign your edits by adding ~ at the end of your posts - this helps people keep track of who said what during discussions.


 * I'm not sure that you read my notes below where I tried to help explain some things about Wikipedia. I agree that it would seem to make more sense for the full article to be at Fiona Graham and have Sayuki redirect instead.  You may wish to go discuss this with the other interested editors on the talk page of the Sayuki article (that's at Talk:Sayuki).


 * As I explained below, there is a reference provided in which it appears that Fiona herself mentioned she skipped the "maiko" stage. This is sufficient for the fact to be included in Wikipedia.  I also explained below that if there are other references available which would correct this information, you need only to provide those when making the change.  Everything on Wikipedia is done based on what other references report.


 * I am here trying to help you. I understand that you may not like everything I have to say and you may not agree with the way things are done at Wikipedia - if you would rather not deal with Wikipedia's policies, you don't have to edit here.  Before calling my edits "offensive" and "damaging" please take the time to realize that I haven't made any edits to either article for many months - so you're really getting upset with the wrong person here.  Regardless, getting upset with other editors isn't going to help your case here; lets try to keep things professional and cordial.


 * Finally, please understand that Ms. Graham has no say over what gets put on Wikipedia just as she does not control other media. If she wishes to control information, I would suggest she do so on her own website and not that of others.  However, if there is any demonstrably false information in the article, I would be happy to amend it immediately if brought to my attention.  The catch here is going to be "demonstrably" - simply stating that she didn't skip the maiko stage is not sufficient evidence in the face of a reputable newspaper which states otherwise. Shell   babelfish 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
It appears that you're new to Wikipedia and its policies. Because of this, you're on a path right now that may end up with your account blocked from editing. I understand that you have an interest in Fiona Graham and her work as Sayuki, but to edit here, you're still going to need to follow Wikipedia policies. The major problem at this time is what we call "edit warring" - in this case, your reverting both articles to your preferred state with very little discussion. In order to keep your account from being blocked, you're going to need to stop reverting and instead talk with the other editor and work out a compromise. Failing that, Wikipedia's page on dispute resolution offers a number of other suggestions on how to resolve differences of opinion while editing.

Some other points that might help you along: It is very unlikely that both articles will remain; one will redirect to the other with the most commonly known name being the one with the full article. Wikipedia reports what other sources say - it may not have been right for sources to report Sayuki's real name, but Wikipedia is not the place to address that wrong. If there's anything else I can do to help sort things out or if I can answer any questions about Wikipedia, you're welcome to use my contact page to get a hold of me by any method you prefer. Thanks for understanding. Shell  babelfish 17:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Other geisha on Wikipedia do not use their real names. 2. The Fiona Graham entry has existed for many years, long before Fiona Graham took on the role of Sayuki. It is is strange for that entry to suddenly disappear because Fiona Graham is doing new fieldwork. If academics with other interests than geisha look Fiona Graham up this is strange and confusing. 3. Sayuki is a role, in exactly the same way as any actress takes on a role. The role doesn't become the person. Sayuki's entry should mention what is relevant to Sayuki. 4. The Sayuki entry has incorrect information about training periods for geisha. It is normal in Kyoto for geisha to come in at 15, or 16, or 17 or even 18. The apprenticeship is only five years if they come in at 15. Across the rest of Japan it varies widely. Sayuki did not "skip" the conventional apprenticeship. She followed the normal route for her district in Tokyo for debuting as a geisha.


 * 1) Can you point me at these other geisha articles that you're referring to? In those cases, do independent sources give the geisha's real names?  If not, that would explain why no other name is given in the article.  In the case of Sayuki, most sources mention Fiona Graham by name and indicate that she has chosen the name Sayuki.
 * 2) Length of time actually has nothing to do with how articles are handled on Wikipedia. In this case I agree that the full article should reside at Fiona Graham with Sayuki being a redirect and having it the other way around does seem confusing unless for some reason Fiona has permanently adopted the new persona.
 * 3) Acting roles only have their own article when the role itself meets a certain level of notability. The Sayuki role is notable mostly because it is another aspect of a notable academic's career; it does not rise to the level of say "Terminator" as I believe you mentioned before.
 * 4) Correcting information is most easily accomplished by providing sources that contain to proper information. The information about Sayuki "skipping" a stage came to be in the article because the information was in The Japan Times reference.  If The Japan Times was incorrect, then showing multiple other sources which get the information right is enough to correct the error. Shell   babelfish 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)