Newshinjitsu

Greetings -- Matcha is the agreed name as per the requested move discussion and Wikipedia naming conventions, please don't change it back without further discussion. Jpatokal 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't re-add the spelling section to Matcha. Not only does it contain plagiarized text, but it is both misleading and unnecessary (see the Matcha talk page). I can tell you're really passionate about how you think the word should be spelled, but that encyclopedia article is not an appropriate medium for you to use to express that view. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) 220.34.144.49 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See above, please. The consensus on this matter is uniformly against you, and the article about a variety of powdered tea is entirely the wrong place to express your dissatisfaction with Hepburn romanization. Jpatokal 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this your final warning re: your original research on the spelling of matcha. Persisting in going against consensus by adding this original research will be considered vandalism. Exploding Boy 06:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your last warning.

Making page edits that are contrary to discussed consensus is disruptive. You have been warned about this behaviour several times. Persisting in this behaviour will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please also see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Exploding Boy 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check out http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo/frame.asp?tm=20070621171031 for correct romanisation. Nowhere is the matcha spelling acceptable anymore.

Stop reversing unfairly and try to add to the knowledge, instead of reversing and deleting it.

Newshinjitsu 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

24-hour vacation

Your four reverts within 24 hours to 抹茶 have won you a 24-hour vacation from Wikipedia. I halfheartedly suggest that you use the vacation to read and digest what a number of people have patiently told you about the romanization of Japanese. A warmer suggestion is that you instead use it to develop an interest in some less trivial aspect of the Japanese language or of 抹茶. -- Hoary 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Since you obviously haven't seen fit to visit this page, I've decided to bring it to you. Here's the section on "What is tendentious editing."

Your sockpuppet account has been blocked for 24 hours. Your main account has been blocked for 24 hours (and your first action when the block expired was to make exactly the same edit that has been the source of all your problems on Wikipedia). If your tendentious editing behaviour continues, you may find yourself permanently banned from the project. I strongly advise you read this information. Exploding Boy 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Axe to grind? Try the hardware store. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this.

Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

Editors who engage in this behaviour generally fall into two categories: those who come to realise the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopaedia—and, well, the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation.

It is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is dickish.

Remember: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Articles, and particularly their titles, must conform to policy regarding verifiability and the neutral point of view.

Still not getting it?

Did you read any of the stuff above? You don't seem to be getting it yet. Should we reexplain in very simple English? -- Hoary 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On this edit of yours: Enough, Newshinjitsu. Stop before you win yourself another block. -- Hoary 12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Boring! -- Hoary 09:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

You're heading for another block. Exploding Boy 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)