Talk:National Union of General Workers (Zenrokyo)/Archive 1

message: There are a lot of unsourced statements in this article. Not only that, but it seems to have been written almost as promotional material for this Union.220.111.60.113 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements

message: * Do you know what wikipedia is?
* Rats not welcome
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.92.22 (talk • contribs) 
:Please refrain from name-calling. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more. -- Chris53516 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working in the Interests of Management

message: This is a warning to let you know that you are contravening WP:3RR Please do not revert the page to your page again. Please add verifiable facts only.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.)
Sparkzilla 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warnings like this go on user talk pages, not article talk pages; putting them on article talk page is considered disruptive and combative.   I know this is old news and Sparkzilla probably knows this already, but incoming new editors might not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Three-revert rule warning 

message: According to Wikipedia rules WP:BP 
 
:Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether the personal details are accurate or not. Nothing in this provision should be taken to apply to users with CheckUser access making information available within the terms of the CheckUser policy. 
Your speculations have been removed. If you do this again I will alert an Admin. Sparkzilla 06:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculating on a user's identity will result in a block

message: The figure of thousands is speculative. The reference given is also not valid. It is a comment given Debito on a blog after having given a talk to NUGW members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed. Debito is not a reliable source when it comes to the unions membership numbers. Is there a better source? Sparkzilla 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As official figures are never released, it would be near on impossible to find a reference. I have heard that number in regards to Tokyo, including Japanese members, and basically believe it is reasonably accurate. But this is supposed to be encyclopedic and not hearsay. I figure there are 2 options. i) delete the number completely ii) rewrite it along the lines of, ...... Union member numbers are impossible to determine due to a non-disclosure policy. It has been speculated that numbers may total in the thousands (with a link to the debito reference). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is pretty funny seeing Sparkzilla having a conversation with his sock puppet. I can image it being done with one actually on his hand as well. Wanzhen 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Member Numbers

message: To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]

message: Acceptable: The source is well attributed in the passage, and comes from a location that passes WP:V. The anonymous English teacher might be talking nonsense as far as I know, but that's not for me to decide.-- Zleitzen(talk) 07:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Zleitzen]]

message: I added the union infobox yesterday, but unintentionally used the wrong logo with it. Does anyone have a copy of the logo they could use? Or could they point me to the proper one, and I'll load it up. More details in the infobox would help as well. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong logo

message: We can't just put 5 or 10 employees. It needs to be the correct number. There is also another factor that is based on the style of the company. Call the GU in Osaka and I think you can get an answer reasonably easily.
I think the correct number is five (full-time) employees, where "full-time" includes people working at least 2/3 of what is defined as "full-time hours". Also my understanding is that "shakai hoken" is a blanket term like "social welfare", and that health and unemployment insurance, and pension, are bundled (this is why I added the Japanese link which -- I believe -- makes this clear). Surely "sickness (sic) insurance" is just another way of saying health insurance. LittleBen 11:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you are writing from hearsay or things that you have incorrectly remembered. Yes, it is 5 employees but you wrote 10. There is also another condition that makes the 5 number irrelevant. Need to research as I can't remember off the top off my head. It has something to do with the style of company involved. 2/3 is also incorrect. It is "about" 3/4, with the about being interpreted on a case by case basis by beauracracy. 100% there is no link between unemployment and shakai hoken insurances. Osakadan 11:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakai Hoken

message: I looked back in the history of this article and read the sentence(s) that refer to the Metropolis article/editorial about this subject.  The sentences were written neutrally and placed appropriately in the article.  I read the RfC above and see that there wasn't a consensus either way about whether to include the Metropolis reference in the article or not.  In my opinion, inclusion of the reference to the Metropolis article is appropriate and I'll explain my reasons why.
Metropolis is considered to be a notable media source as it has its own entry on Wikipedia and no information is presented in the Metropolis article that disputes its status as a journalistic source.  That means that it's okay to cite that publication as a source in Wikipedia articles.  Also, the article in question has a byline, which gives it more credibility since that reporter is taking accountability for what's written in the article.  If someone has a problem with the source, they can state so in the text of the article or in the footnote which is what I do with articles that I edit if there's an issue with the source that I'm using.
I'm going to add that small passage back to the article.  If someone wants to add the issue that may or may not exist with the credibility of the article, they're free to do so in the text or within the footnote, which I think is a more appropriate place. Cla68 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. I stand by the comments made in the above RfC. As the editor adding or reverting material likely to be challenged - which I do - the burden of evidence is upon you to provide a reliable source. The next step after an RfC is an RfA perhaps? David Lyons 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess so.  But the RfAr (RfA is "Request for Adminship") is a lengthy, time-consuming, tedious, and frustrating process.  I don't feel strongly enough about it to engage in it over this issue.  So, if you want to delete the Metropolis reference, I won't fight it, although I don't agree with it.  I believe we'll always have this trouble on Japan-related subjects that Metropolis has reported on because it appears that some of us don't believe that that publication's reporting is credible and some (like me) believe that it is. Cla68 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took this to RFC. The issue here wasn't the credibility of the magazine, but the notability of the writer. It's a pity that the link to the article is not included because it raises valid points about the union's activities, but I accept the RFC's conclusions. Sparkzilla 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were reading this article, I too, would want to know if there were any concerns over this union's activities.  By the way, the next step after RfC isn't RfAr, but mediation (RfM?). Cla68 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comment on ''Metropolis'' article