User talk:Arudoudebito/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unblocked

Hi, Debito. Just wanted to inform you that your information has been verified and your account has now been unblocked. You may wish now to edit your user page. Thanks for your patience during that temporary block. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Per our policy on usernames, I have temporarily blocked your account.

I have done this because your user name is the same as that of a well-known person, and because you have been editing the article about that person and claiming to be that person. You are welcome to use your real name on Wikipedia, but since you are claiming to be Arudou Debito, we ask that you provide verification. You can do this by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org (perhaps using an email address associated with your website) explaining the situation. The information you provide will be kept private.

Please note also that, while there is no specific prohibition on editing articles about yourself or about issues with which you are personally involved, our conflict of interest policy applies, so you should probably read it.

Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Exploding Boy. I don't see how to leave a note on your talk page (and I'm blocked from leaving anything constituting an edit). So let me post here what I sent to the email address you provided.

From: debito@debito.org Subject: Hello Wikipedia from Arudou Debito Date: August 23, 2008 6:07:10 AM JST To: info-en@wikimedia.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <BF14BF50-1553-4063-A921-B2119D808299@debito.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Hello Wikipedia. One of your editors, Exploding Boy, has frozen my account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arudoudebito&redirect=no

==================

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Per our policy on usernames, I have temporarily blocked your account.

I have done this because your user name is the same as that of a well-known person, and because you have been editing the article about that person and claiming to be that person. You are welcome to use your real name on Wikipedia, but since you are claiming to be Arudou Debito, we ask that you provide verification. You can do this by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org (perhaps using an email address associated with your website) explaining the situation. The information you provide will be kept private.

Please note also that, while there is no specific prohibition on editing articles about yourself or about issues with which you are personally involved, our conflict of interest policy applies, so you should probably read it.

Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

==================

What information would suffice as verification? I am writing from a friend's house in San Francisco, as I have a speech there tomorrow, August 23. Here's proof of that from the Berkeley Daily Planet.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-08-21/article/30894?headline=Community-Calendar

I am using my email address, debito@debito.org.

Please advise. Thanks. Debito in San Francisco Arudoudebito (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, for future reference you should be able to click on the "talk" link on any user's signature to be directed to their talk page.

I'm sure that the message from your email address will suffice. Someone at OTRS (where you sent the email) will verify and unblock you asap. Thanks for your patience. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi EB. I went to your talk page, didn't see any link indicating how I could post or add, and when I tried to edit one of the comments at the bottom, I was blocked. Anyway, I'm a neophyte to all this, and hope we can make Wikipedia a better place for portraying living people and the controversies surrounding the issues they take up. Thanks for replying. Arudoudebito (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you scroll to the bottom of the page, there should be a link that says "edit this page." You can find the same link in the list of links on the left. It may be that you were unable to do so because you were blocked at the time (although I don't think so -- you should still have been able to edit talk pages). Exploding Boy (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That's strange. I've always thought that blocked users can only edit their own talk page, per Wikipedia:Blocked users can edit their own talk page. Indeed, I see blocked users complaining about this all the time, but I've never blocked and am not an admin, so I can't be sure. --C S (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Anyway, he's unblocked again now, so the problem should have gone away. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

I've no idea why you can't use my main talk page... It's a mystery. Do you see a "talk" link next to my name on my signature? Hmm.

Anyway, as for Japanese Wikipedia, you can check Chatsubo, which has information in English, or ヘルプ, which has information in Japanese.

Regarding real time harassment, I wouldn't know where to begin with that. Most likely you would have to go through the police, but you could try posting on WP:AN for more advice. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you do not mind, I would like for you to participate in the discussion about the use of Japanreview.net - It could help Wikipedia decide whether to use the site. Also please see Armanac's comments. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to discuss. Japanreview.net is a defunct site. And it's not even a publication. Debito.org is frowned upon being cited, even when it contains archives from "real" third-party publications. Then neither should a website like JRN, which cites stockbrokers and whomever as though they're authorities in the field. And who the hell is Yuki Honjo, and why is she being cited twice when true authorities like Donald Richie et al (I've already provided links to the Talk page) are not?

Sorry, I don't feel like wasting my time with this medium anymore, when all that has to happen is for people with consciences and real lives have to avert their eyes, and the trolls slowly seep in again and revert. Real researchers should either be consulting with me and/or with real sources in the first place anyway. But that's not going to happen given how nasty the Internet has become this decade and the systemic flaws that Wikipedia has given contentious topics and figures. It's time for an alternative, and I'm recommending Citizendium from now on (see my blog today). Thanks for the invitation anyway.Arudoudebito (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • The debate about Japanreview is continuing, and J Readings said that, because several high profile newspapers and journals point to Japanreview being reliable, Japanreview is reliable. BTW, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have access to Lexis-Nexis, so I will double check.
    • "Real researchers should either be consulting with me and/or with real sources in the first place anyway." - Real researchers distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources have their uses, but it has been said over and over again that Wikipedia mostly relies on secondary sources. Yes, we cite Debito.org in your article, but we do so in special ways according to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - This answers your question.
    • Unfortunately I think Citizendum may also add that material; I am not familiar with Citizendum, though, but I will look at it. If Citizendum has the same policies regarding primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, then why not criticize both Wikipedia and Citizendum? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Via Lexis-Nexis I found the Daily Yomiuri article about japanreview.net - I'll see if I can find more sources, though. As for Citizendum I cannot find clear policies that mention the priority of sources. What I understand is that confirmed academics have more sway over affairs than regular users, while on Wikipedia we focus on getting reliable sources and that academics and non-academics have equal say. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Of course "J Readings" would say that. He or she is one of the editors at JRN (and, note, one of the "guardian editors" of the Arudou Debito Wikipedia entry). And it's pretty amazing how we'll still argue that just because one newspaper article (or two, perhaps) calls a defunct site reliable, that means that everything that comes on that site afterwards (including quotes by verifiably non-experts) means they're also reliable in perpetuity. (Especially given an unprofessional review full of mistakes and odd analyses that Honjo herself, whoever she is, put on JRN regarding one of Arudou Debito's books, see http://www.debito.org/japanreviewcritique.html). Hard to assume good faith.

C'mon, people, use your noggins. Falling for this level of sophistry about what constitutes a reliable source does not restore my faith in Wikipedia's editorial standards. If Debito.org cannot be cited, neither can Japanreview.net. The end. And if Honjo (again, whoever she is) can be cited not once, but twice, why can't certified experts who have something good to say about the subject also be? Because there is a bias. And what's to stop said sophistries from being reinserted later, anyway? These are systemic flaws Wikipedia just isn't designed to fix. Arudoudebito (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I tend to agree that Japanreview.net is not the best source in the world, but the particular review generated responses from long-time, prominent expatriates in Japan who have demonstrably written about foreign life in Japan. That speaks to the credibility of the article. Note that Robert Neff's comments about you carried in Japanreview.net were not included. That particular article did not generate significant interest from notable members of the community, expatriate or otherwise. (Although one might include Neff's comments about you onsen experience as he is something of an "onsen expert".--130.216.233.52 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

1. For what is defined as Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Trolling (please read these) we can block users, protect pages, and watch pages to revert obvious vandalism. However... 2. This is a Wikipedia:Content dispute. I do not have any evidence that J Readings is in a COI and he seems to be acting in good faith. Just because one is acting in good faith doesn't necessarily mean he or she is correct or that his or her suggestions are correct - it means that discussion should focus around the issues as long as the subjects have good faith. 3. Anyway some updates have been posted - I found that the Yomiuri Shimbun has discussed Japanreview.net (got it from Lexis-Nexis) - Wikipedia:RS says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I am still looking at Wikipedia:RS and I will ask about reliable sources on IRC. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for citing the canon. But you're not answering the specific concerns raised. I've demonstrated numerous times over the past two months how that the canon is not being followed with the Arudou Debito entry. Just saying that these are the ways that Wikipedia does things does not mean they are being done. Arudoudebito (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop editing your own article, Mr. Arudou, in accordance with WP:AB. --  Denelson83  08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, and as I have stated a number of times on the Talk page, I have never edited my own article. I have been told that I could, and I have always refused. (See entry at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou#NPOV_tag_added_by_subject_of_this_Wikpedia_entry_August_2008., entry dated 07:28, 22 August 2008) -- precisely for the accusations like these that would ensue. I am fully within guidelines to comment on Talk pages, however, as I have also been repeatedly told by editors. So here I am.

Throwing false allegations like this shows how the wagons are circling, and further attests to the quality of the editorship. They don't even check the record. Arudoudebito (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your user contributions page contradicts that statement. See this entry?

• 08:52, 30 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Debito Arudou ‎ (Replacing NPOV tag. Article still biased, previously-removed unpublished sources like Japanreview.net and Yuki Honjo have been replaced.)

(Time is in PDT)

 Denelson83  08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Just putting up a NPOV tag does not "edit" the page, in the sense of altering the contents of anything on the page. I have not. I have asked others to do so. I did that last August too and it did not cause any "edit" issues then either. Again, if these are the semantics that editors engage in in this media just to delegitimize and smear their subjects, I despair for the media itself.

How would you like it if people were anonymously saying things that were biased and twisted to the point of being untrue about you? And you couldn't know who your accusers are (a right in other respectable media), even when you ask? It's not as though it's a fair fight here. Show a bit of empathy with the subject you're critiquing, can't ya? Arudoudebito (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Read "don't be a dick" sometime, Denelson. It's true that technically he did "edit" his bio, by placing an NPOV tag on it. But the usual meaning of "edit your own article", one which any reasonable person would assume especially when hurled as an accusation, is that he has directly edited passages in the article to reflect his POV. This is not the case, and I commend Mr. Arudou for his admirable restraint thus far in touching the contents of the article. There's no need to come here with an accusatory attitude. --C S (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, CS. Now is there something we can do about the bit that Denelson added to the main talk page, saying "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Debito Arudou, has edited Wikipedia as Arudoudebito"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debito_Arudou). I have done no such thing, and I resent the implication.

I'm really disappointed in the tactics resorted on this and the talk page to impugn my character. "J Readings" accuses me of trying to "micro-manage my resume" and convert the entry on Wikipedia on me into an "advertisement". Denelson lies about my editing my own entry and puts up a tag to illustrate it. Another editor defends J Readings not coming clean about his or her identity when there could be COI regarding sources. And my arguments keep on being willfully misconstrued and unanswered by respondents no matter how clear I try to make them. These are some of the insidious tactics used by Internet trolls and it's on Wikipedia, something people see first whenever they Google me.

To hell with this media. Anonymity certainly enables humans to resort to inhumane behavior. Arudoudebito (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Don't be a dick might also be helpful for Arudoudebito here as well. Constant attacks of Wikipedia and its editors because they don't share his views on his article is hardly "restraint". Guess what, we're not the media. We're not held to the standards you believe we should be. We have our own standards. If they don't satisfy you, fine, but don't come here and ignore our stands just because the article is about you. You cannot control everything about you.

Don't accuse other editors of lying, when denelson83 is correct in that you have edited your article (although you did not edit content), and you have been editing on Wikipedia (this includes talk pages and various other background areas besides simply the articles). You worries about COI with J Readings have already been address, you chose to ignore them. We've answered your arguements and told you ours. You continue to insist that these are "tactics", "bias", "attacks", "allegations" and various other nonsense. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Your opinion does not overrule everyone else's. We must come to an agreeable middle ground through discussion. Insulting others because they don't do it your way is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. We're sorry if you don't agree about the way things are done on Wikipedia, but we're not going to change our policies so that your article turns out the way you want.

To even call this inhuman behaviour is quite frankly, beyond uncalled for. See WP:DICK above. The359 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So we decided to do this: One one hand we will use Japanreview, but on the other hand we cut down the mention to one long sentence with a semicolon; what Honjo said herself was cut out and I tried to make the sentence more general. That is how Wikipedia works. Of course you are welcome to comment further on the article, provided that you keep The359's statements above mine in mind. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. If I comment on the Talk pages any further, I'll be accused of editing my own article. And I'll be misquoted in the process (I did not use the word "inhuman", for example). I'm just supposed to shut up and take it by people who won't take any personal responsibility for what they say or reveal who they are, even when there is a potential conflict of interest with an editor and a source (in other words, the COI is perpetually placed on me, never you). The process here is neither fair nor professional. And I'll have no part of it since it will have no part of me. What a contemptuous and derisive way to treat the subject of a biography of a living person, who just happens to know the most about the subject at hand. Arudoudebito (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a typo, calm down. Inhuman or inhumane, it didn't belong regardless, nor is it showing any "restraint" on your part. And no, no one mentioned that you "edited your own article because you edited a talk page." You confused two separate statements.

You're not supposed to shut up. You're supposed to discuss, rather than calling Wikipedians names, calling into question their neutrality, or demanding that they reveal some secret to put you down.

We've already discussed the possible COI with J Readings. Even if J Readings is involved with JapanReview, would have NO merit to whether or not the source is allowed or whether or not it can be used on this article. We allow you to edit an article on yourself if you can remain neutral. J Readings, assuming he is involved with JapanReview (no proof whatsoever), has not shown any bias or conflict of interest in his actions. COI concerns are placed on everyone. We see none with J Readings. We see one with you, however.

We want you to be a part of Wikipedia. But not if you're going to act like a child and only accept things your way, ignoring our own policies and ignoring the opinions and statements of others. We want you to discuss, not demand.

If you continue to feel that Wikipedia is not worth your time, then I suggest you end it now and end this one-sided arguement. This continuing to insult Wikipedians and claim that we're all somehow oblivious to these problems you see is becoming quite immature, as are the continued claims that "you're done" while still being here. The359 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an unfair statement. Debito is criticising the system and not the individuals that created or maintain the system (as usual)and he never claimed to be done he merely claimed to be fed up with Wikipedia. To conclude, the article on Debito looks fine at the moment but if this trouble flares up again I would like to help resolve it. Sioraf (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 16:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mister Mtzplk and Sweetandloveable

Hello Debito, and sorry that our first meeting has to come under such inauspicious circumstances. I've been watching Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mister Mtzplk for a while now, and the CheckUser results just came back as "likely". This means that the technical data that Wikipedia holds about your account suggests that it is likely that this account, User:Mister Mtzplk and User:Sweetandloveable are operated by the same person, or by people living in close proximity, or people using the same computer in different locations, etc. I have no idea about the details of this technical data, as that is private information that the Wikimedia Foundation only discloses to a few trusted users with the "CheckUser" right. All I have to go on is the fact that the accounts are "likely" to be related.

In such situations individual Wikipedia administrators must make a judgement about whether the edits from the accounts violate Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, based on both the CheckUser result and on behavioural evidence. It is impossible to be 100% sure, but I think the most likely explanation for the CheckUser results and for the close interest in the Debito Arudou article from the Mister Mtzplk and Sweetandloveable accounts is that there is some sort of sockpuppetry or off-site recruitment of editors going on, both of which are against Wikipedia policy. As such I have blocked both of those accounts indefinitely. Normally in sockpuppetry cases the main account is also blocked for a short period of time, but I'm not going to that in this case, as you might not have been aware of Wikipedia's rules regarding multiple accounts, and now that you are I trust that you'll abide by the sockpuppetry policy in the future.

By the way, I saw your post about your article on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and I appreciate the concerns you have about it. Since you made that post the article has been edited by User:Cwobeel to bring it more in line with Wikipedia policies, so hopefully that is a bit better. If there are any other issues in the article that you are concerned about, probably the best way of dealing with them is for you to bring them up on Talk:Debito Arudou. It is encouraged for article subjects to post on their article's talk page, although editing the article itself is on much shakier ground with respect to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. For my part, I will be keeping an eye on the article and the talk page to make sure that all Wikipedia policies are adhered to. Please let me know if you have any questions - you can reply here, on my talk page, or by email, whichever you are most comfortable with. Best wishes — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Arudoudebito. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Please do not add your views to articles. Use talk pages so that neutral editors can see your suggestions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Racism in Asia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, NeilN, but please check the record. I did not add to the content of that site. I merely restored it to the original. Please do not state that I added content when I did not put that content there in the first place.

Further, please look at the contribution record of the person deleting the information: He is a new IP editor with a record of vandalism, including calling people autistic on their user pages.

If you want to delete the sentence as being unsourced, I'm fine with that. But a vandalizing editor deleting it because he thinks its "irrelevant" is not the same thing. Please direct your criticisms at the more appropriate target. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see where the misunderstanding here has arisen. In Wikipedia policy, the responsibility for providing citations is on the editor who adds or restores material. Even if the IP has made vandalistic edits and has a COI, removing unsourced material is compliant with policy, and adding it back again is against policy. In this case it would have been better for the IP to add a citation (or a citation needed tag) rather than deleting the material, but once unsourced content is removed we have to deal with it according to policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing BLPs

Hi, Dr. Arudou.

I've noticed you've been editing a couple of other articles on living people since our initial interaction on the Donald Keene article. I think it probably needs clarification: opinion columns are not appropriate citations for negative criticism of living people (I have said the same thing about others' edits to the article on you as your edits to the Mori and Keene articles).

It was also inappropriate for you to post on Ayako Sono wording that explicitly implied she was still in the employ of the Abe administration when she made the repugnant (to say the least) comments in question. The source you cited actually said the opposite: it explicitly stated that she made the remarks in question well over a year after resigning the position you cited her as having. Your edit thus drew an original connection that was not in the source, in violation of WP:NOR.

Could you please be a bit more careful when editing BLPs?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 19:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of WP:OUTING, link to WP:BIOSELF

Greetings, looking over your talk page I do not see when, if ever, you were notified of our policy on WP:OUTING. When (and if) you are discussing behavior of other editors, please do not speculate as to their real-world identity. Such speculation can only serve as a distraction from the very real and important concerns you may have. I know you had a sentence or two on your BLPN post late last year; I think it would be reasonable for you to take the unusual step of removing the portions of that post that violate this policy from the archive.

On the other hand, following the steps listed at WP:BIOSELF while in compliance with WP:OUTING will never be interpreted by the community as harassment of other editors, and accusations that posting on the article talk page is somehow inappropriate should be immediately and unambiguously called out as BS. Just link WP:BIOSELF to remind them you have policy on your side. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice. Nobody has ever made this policy or process clear to me. All I hear (from the editor in question) is that my questioning her behavior or pointing to her past edit record as evidence of biased editing is somehow WP:HARASSMENT or WP:OUTING. It never made sense. Even the use of the pronoun "she" in conjunction is somehow a form of "Outing" (I still don't see how -- there remain billions of "shes" out there). So I very much appreciate the advisement. It's quite rough being the subject of an effigized BLP. May it never happen to you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Should I nudge Mr. Strad for a concluding commment on the Oddexit issue? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Naw, he is certainly aware of what is on his own talk page and would have/will reply if he considers it helpful. VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)