User talk:GMTnishi

Welcome!

 * }

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Emi Suzuki has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://twitter.com/RenaTakeshita?max_id=18655811924393984&page=41&twttr=true. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Suzuki
By the consensus of a few other editors, no one cares about that. I don't want to sound offensive, but all of this stuff about how she's slim, the commentary, the friends, and the weird bias... let it go. You don't see this on other more highly ranked articles. ★ Dasani ★ 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you cite sources, most of the previous stuff wasn't even encyclopedic. I don't want to be harsh but it's basically the equivalent of going to Britney Spears or Madonna and adding, "People went on live TV and said that they think Spears is now a bloated cow" and/or details about their food, sex, and entertainment lives. Some things you just don't say, even afterwards. ★ Dasani ★ 17:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you but sorry, I don't see any concensus anywhere... There are some discussions in the discussion page I know, but that's it. You also removed some sources I added which are obviously reliable. Please don't revert - Of course, I know I don't have any right to "lead" that article (WP:OWN), and I know it has some BLP issues (particularly in the Weight section). I'll restore that and of course, remove some contents someday. GMTnishi (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, it doesn't matter how reliable your sources are. Some things just don't go on Wiki. And I'm not trying to be harsh but "remove some contents someday"? Excuse me? I spoke to several admins and they indeed said that some of the stuff in this article does violate guidelines. ★ Dasani ★ 01:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dasani on this subject. Full paragraphs and subsections for things like the subject being shy or being a fan of MMA is clearly excessive and of interest only to hardcore fans.  As Wikipedia members, we're not here to include everything the media reports on - if that was the case, every Wiki article on a celebrity would be a mess of trivia.  That said, not everything has to be purged.  There are a lot of articles with sections like "Public recognition" or "In the media" that are used to mention (not go on and on about) arguably trivial topics as long as those topics did receive significant media coverage from more than just gossip and entertainment news sites.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 20:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this was your stance before, but the editor continued to go overboard and readd everything. I could not find much in the article that was written fairly, and a lot of it was actually repetitive. From what I remember (and I made quite a few edits, too), the article was focusing more on gossip, her residence, her friends, and heavy criticism of her weight. Not much else was worth keeping. (I think he or she readded more, too.) I'm not sure there is much that can still be included, though. I remember that we had many good or featured articles about celebrities and in the end, most stuff was snipped. Admins stood around and said things like, "We don't care to know how s/he met." Similarly, "This isn't a tabloid issue. We don't need details of her weight, cars she bought/was gifted, or even where she lives." ★ Dasani ★ 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned in one edit history, User_talk:Mbinebri. Why are you guys always so defensive about Japanese articles? It doesn't make these people any more special for having been born and performing overseas. The same guidelines still apply. ★ Dasani ★ 01:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivial matters or not - I think that is (are) not trivial because that has (have) been significantly discussed (subject/s of commentary). I think that should be included because that is (are) a matter(s) which explain how she has been viewed by the public (hence it has/have been discussed). As far as I know, judging what is important or not is not our business, it has to be done by... I strongly oppose your mass deletion. GMTnishi (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging what's worth inclusion is exactly our business. I came across a news item about Miley Cyrus the other day detailing how she was wearing a band-aid on her finger.  Then there was another item on her showing "side-boob" while shopping.  This is what the media reports on, and it would be absurd to put this stuff in Cyrus' article simply because the media pays it attention.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 23:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you but huh? It's not our business, as far as I know, it should be done by sources... Being largely discussed is at least a claim of impotance. The only thing I find trivial is her cameo-appearance in Machine music videos. As for the MMA section, for example, her apeparance in Dynamite!! 2009, one of the largest MMA event in MMA history, was largely discussed in multiple sources including the best-selling MMA magazine published in Japan. GMTnishi (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. Just because a source publishes it does NOT mean everything should be included on Wikipedia articles. By using that judgement, every single biographical article should be littered with tidbits about what celebrities and their friends and residences are, along with outside opinions. But they aren't. The TV appearances I understand, but you would be surprised to find that cameo appearances are one of the few things actually kept in good and featured articles. ★ Dasani ★ 01:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, since you decided to write for us, you're going to have to follow these guidelines. There's no sense in standing around claiming it's nobody's business. It's everybody's business now. ★ Dasani ★ 02:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I know it, and I mean - judging what is important or not is not our business, but should be entrusted to sources. In this case, as for "about her weight", for example, I think it should be mentioned in the article because it has been a subject of intensive discussion according to sources, and also has directly been related to her career of fashion modeling. GMTnishi (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to reply to my messages, but you also feel an urge to revert the article into the former state. Why the contradictions? Also, we were not avoiding the weight subject. Even in the revised version of Suzuki's article, the general sense is that she is a thin person. Many magazines have covered this, and her metabolism is extremely fast. There is no need to mention every single opinion or every single detail of her residence and hobbies, as I've stated before. ★ Dasani ★ 03:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hobbies" - I don't see any information focusing on her hobbies in my last edition. Do you mean MMA? If so, the "hobby" seems to have directly affected her career as a tarento, so I think it should be mentioned in the article. GMTnishi (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You kept readding bits that were there before. We don't need the details of her residence, friends, and all the other stuff. Even after I said it, you continued to readd these disputed parts. Even if the page becomes unprotected, I can guarantee the stuff will be cut again. Take a look at the Japanese version of Suzuki's article. Apparently, MMA is not notable enough to be mentioned there. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 17:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, you know, and the Japanese version of her article has barely expanded since 2005; it has been repeatedly protected and deleted for Japanese Wikipedia's original BLP policy regarding inclusion of particular information about privacy.
 * And now, to be frank, I've got tired of doing this. I feel terrible for wasting this holiday, and your time... How can we reach a compromise? GMTnishi (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at Emi Suzuki shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. 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. ''I understand that you have a difference in opinion on what belongs in the article, but you're not helping yourself with constant reversions. The consensus - albeit involving only three people - isn't in your favor. Don't get yourself blocked for ignoring it.  Mbinebri ''  talk &larr; 03:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)