User talk:Temulag

Etiquette in Japan
Regarding your edits here.

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you read Attack on Pearl Harbor? It provides historical detail that is necessary to understanding the sequence of events better.
 * 2) Your commentary has nothing to do with etiquette in the general population. Please do not make wide aspersions of an entire nation, based on the actions of individuals (or its government). In that direction is racism.
 * Yes I see. Attack first, fulfil the niceties of a formal declaration of war later. (but surely such behaviour in no way touches on a matter of etiquette!?)
 * They did what they did and with the examples of the Russo-Japanese war, Second Sino-Japanese War, and Attack on Pearl Harbour repeatedly so. As a revealed cultural trait confirmed by repetition, and also standing it apart from other nations in the particular regard, it's a matter of etiquette and significant cultural difference warranting coverage in the article. Mere 'individuals' didn't do those wars, they were sustained national efforts enjoying a massive, enthusiastic, participation from the populace that were carried through without significant civilian protests and dissent .. or even reflective remorse and apology. You'll find too much respect for the dead here to be covering over the reality of that peoples' behaviour. How exactly would -you- put the description of their etiquette in those bloodsheds? In fact, in living memory have they EVER hesitated to communicate a declaration of war before actually waging war? If there be one example then we might pause to reconsider; not otherwise.Temulag (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not editing in the right article - etiquette in Japan is about etiquette IN Japan, so international politics is not relevant there, least of all in the hospitality section. Besides etiquette is about interactions between people, not between governments. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. --DAJF (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Block
As you have well and truly exceeded three reverts today on the Etiquette in Japan article, you have been blocked for 24 hours. When you return from your block, please do not resort to edit-warring behaviour - instead, go to the talk page and discuss proposed changes. Please also be mindful of neutral point of view, a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 12:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not "the other party to the content dispute" - I performed a rollback on the third attempt at the edit (the first two were reverted by User:Quiddity) as it was certainly edit warring by that stage, and you had not entered into discussion with those on the article who felt the unsourced opinion being added was inappropriate to the article's scope. I was at that stage an entirely uninvolved admin. It is *always* better, without exception, to discuss changes and obtain consensus for them rather than edit-war them in when they have been disputed on clear grounds. Orderinchaos 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As you have since been found to be a sockpuppet of a blocked editor (see Sockpuppet investigations/Tasbian) in violation of ArbCom sanctions, I have extended the block to indefinite. This action will be recorded at the Scientology arbitration case. Orderinchaos 04:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)