User talk:JoshuSasori/Archive 3

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks. If true then Wikipedia is a lot less active than it used to be. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Risa Yoshiki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bondage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong image for Sasori film
Hello, I've just perpetrated this edit: tampering with a signed comment of yours. This is normally a no-no, but if you hear me out I think/hope you'll understand.

First, you're right and the merrily named (and usually very conscientious) Dekkappai was wrong. I should have noticed the irrelevance of the image myself; I didn't; my bad. You were right to object to its use. I'm pretty sure that if Dekkappai read your comment, he'd agree with you.

His page is on my watchlist, but then thousands of pages are and I didn't notice your first message to him. I did notice your new one, and took a look. In asking him, you -- very understandably (and, if it were me who set the rules, permissibly) -- used a "non-free" image in a talk page. You mustn't do this (sorry, too lazy to look for the page telling you this, but it does exist), and it was only a matter of time till some bot or human removed it (rendering your comment incomprehensible) and told you off. So I fixed this for you.

Despite this carelessness of Dekkappai's, he was a valuable contributor. Sometimes he and I disagreed, and certainly he often got into blazing rows with others. His page has an email link. If that address still worked and you wrote to him and persuaded him to return, I'd be most happy.

(Actually it was D who persuaded me to put down the money for a boxed set of Sasori DVDs. And what an excellent buy that was. I'll always be grateful for his tip.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks "NO NON=FREE IMAGE ON TALK PAGE", so the image will surely be removed unless someone makes a page about the new film, so if you want to keep it then you should make the page (I haven't seen it and have no plans to do so). Dekkapai user has another account User:Horace Higginbotham. I don't have any boxed sets I just watch these Japanese films on the television. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaneto Shindo
umm.....okey dokey Nice work on the article by the way kiddo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoliveirafan (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wrote silly edit summaries for the benefit of another user who reads my edit summaries and then complains about them. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoax tag on Hanako-san
Could you please explain why you believe the subject article is a hoax on its respective talk page? Thanks. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not a hoax, just remove the tag if you think so. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you help with this edit
If you haven't seen it already I am sure that you will notice this edit. I am wondering if you can clean it up a bit. First, I think that it needs to be moved past the reference for the sentence that comes before it (I would have done this but I wanted you to see the edit as is.) Next, the reference needs to be enhanced so I am wondering if you have Donald Richie's book (I have it but it is in a box in storage and I would have a difficult time getting to it) so that you can give it the full citation - I hope that it is from his main book because if it is from an essay he did for a magazine or something else it will be harder to track down. Last, if you are able to track the book I am wondering if this sentence is in it as written "This film introduced an eerie humanistic stance toward the slippery nature of truth." For me the language is a little to flowery for an encyclopedia but if it is a direct quote from the book then we leave it as is. If you don't have the book or are too busy doing other things please don't worry about it. Thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The same user has made some edits on various pages and they are all similar to this. I left two messages on his talk page asking him to please improve a citation and tidy the edit up better but he did not respond to my messages. I will just have another look and come back to this. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As he has still not responded, unfortunately the best thing to do is to remove these edits. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We got lots of people who edit for a day or so then disappear. If this person comes back maybe they will respond to your posts and improve things. Thanks for taking the time to take care of this. MarnetteD | Talk 02:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Final vote on which image to use
There's a final vote on which image to use a WikiProject Japan. It's about to close. As you voted in the original poll, you might be interested in having your final say.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 06:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

About reverting your edit
Hello, JoshuSasori

I just wanted to let you know that your edit to Template:Film Japan is reverted because unlike what you seem to think ("rm link to non-existent discussion (lazy or something?)"), a discussion is indeed in progress. Only you have to look at the very very very very bottom. See Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 12.

Why the template does not link to the discussion? It is beyond me. I am new around here.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK sorry I could not find on that page. Thanks for doing it. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

re: Kaneto Shindo film titles and cast names
Hi and thanks for the comments. I'm using the source from the CITWF (ref'd in the articles) and going by WP:UE and WP:NCF. Let me know if there's a problem with the English-language translations. I'm not sure what circumflexes or macrons are though. Those little floating lines above the Os?  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * macron: ō circumflex: ô. I suggest changing the names to the Japanese titles. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Re: Harakiri (1962) edit
Hi Joshu,

Firstly, let me congratulate for the great work that you have been doing on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Now, coming to the changes done by me on the Harakiri (film) page, I must insist that the content added by me cannot be deemed as an original research wrt Wikipedia guidelines. I have been an independent film critic for last four years and have written several reviews at IMDb.Com in the interim. Like yourself, I have been a great admirer of Japanese Cinema which you can infer from my reviews/essays on my blog as well as IMDb.Com. Some of my movie articles have also got published in National Dailies like The Hindu, The Hindustantimes, etc. The essay written by me on Masaki Kobayashi's Harakiri (1962) for my blog 'A Potpourri of Vestiges' has been a result of several days of research, for which I can site several sources. Some of them are as follows:

http://japancinema.net/2012/03/26/behind-the-screen-an-introspective-look-at-harakiri/

http://constantineintokyo.com/2009/10/22/japanese-film-reviews-12-kobayashi-masakis-harakiri/

http://www.flying-guillotine.com/harakiri/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120223/REVIEWS08/120229987

http://www.bonjourtristesse.net/2011/11/harakiri-1962.html

Something that further testifies its authenticity is the fact that it has been accepted by the editors at IMDb.com to be fit enough to feature in the website's critics section along with several other esteemed reviews including the one written by Roger Ebert. The link for the same is:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056058/externalreviews

Now, as per my understanding, whatever information I had added about Harakiri's style cannot be deemed as original research, for the review on my blog forms the basis for it. Also, I believe that the above mentioned details pertaining to the authenticity of my review (as well as my blog) are good enough to testify the reliability of my review (as well as my blog).

I sincerely hope that you will take the above stated facts into consideration and feel obliged to revert the changes at the earliest possible.

Warm Regards, Murtaza Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.mma (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response but what you describe above is exactly what is prohibited: "original research". Could you please read WP:OR because I think you didn't read it yet. If you have questions, then I will try to answer them for you. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

I think you meant WP:OR and not WP:OP. Anyway, as per my interpretation 'original research' implies facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. And I quote, "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Now, in matters relating to Cinema, we can seldom site such sources, for most of the material is available only in form of online material. In the current wikipedia page for Harakiri, I only see two citations: the first is Roger Ebert's review and the other is "Festival de Cannes: Harakiri". After having gone through both the sources, I feel that the material posted on the wikipedia page far exceeds the implied limitations of the cited sources, especially the 'Plot' and 'Theme' parts. Now, couldn't the both of them be also removed on grounds of WP:OR? Perhaps, you have left it untouched because someone else prior to you might have left it that way. As per my understanding, if we are to go by the wikipedia guidelines, each and every fact that's stated should have a citation which is obviously not the case with the Harakiri article. But, it is often quite impracticable to be so rigid in one's approach, for the basic idea is to have content that's rich, comprehensive, effective as well as readily available. Otherwise, most of the content available on wikipedia would be considered as good as drivel.

I sincerely hope that you will give it a serious thought and do the needful.

Regards, Murtaza Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.mma (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry WP:ORIGINAL. I am sorry but adding a big chunk of your opinions or your analysis to Wikipedia using your blog as a reference is just not OK. Perhaps if you want to confirm this you could try asking other editors about this issue. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! It would have saved the both of us some precious time had you come to the point straight. Now, I don't write/edit wikipedia pages regularly, and to be frank, I don't have much spare time for it. There is a often a fine line between what is implied and what is inferred. What you have finally mentioned in the clarification is as black and white as it should have been in the first place. I understand that there is always a question of reliability when giving references to material that's self-written. Then, why ask for references in the first place and why allow commoners to edit the content? Within the guidelines, anyone can go about sabotaging the content endlessly and I assure you that people like you and I can't do much to keep such elements at bay. In fact, that's what has been happening to most of the wiki pages. From, now on, I will try to devote more time to keep such naked demonstration of free will under check. I will especially be keeping my eye on pages pertaining to Japanese Cinema to make sure that no unreliable material sees the light of the day, for I see that only a handful of people seem interested to take care of this responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.mma (talk • contribs) 06:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

*
I had only removed the word "thus" from the Catherine Russell quotation as it alluded to a previous paragraph;the rest of the quotation remained intact. I had previously included the same paragraph without ascribing the content to Miss Russell,for which I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrose45 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find that quote using Google book search. Do you think that a huge quote like that is OK? JoshuSasori (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)