Archives

Archive 1

Thanks for dropping by my talk page.

This user deserves a barnstar for their effort on improving Nova (English school in Japan). I'm just not sure how to go about it. I'll try when I knock off school. Good job, aye.

ZayZayEM 04:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to User:Statisticalregression for putting in the hard yards to cleaning out and reinventing the often troublesome state of Nova (English school in Japan). It's editors like you that make wikipedia grand.ZayZayEM

777Metatron777 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Hi this is my first attempt ( and maybe my last as I admit I am hopeless at computers) at this so if this is not the way to communicate then please delete it and help me to learn a bit by telling me how one communicates with other editors. I saw that you had deleted my edit to your eikaiwa page. Although I am sure that there were other eikaiwas involved I do know for sure that Michaels Eikaiwa which has schools only in Kansai at Tennoji and Nishiku did appear on Kansai Terebi and also did appear in Asahi newspaper and at least 3 local newspapers. I thought it was actually very relevant in an article about Eikaiwas and particularly thr demise of Nova. Michaels Eikaiwa offered Nova students the chance to use their coupons at their school....literally free of charge. The offer lasted a year. Most people said it was mad!! In fact the offer did nearly bankrupt the school. However the school was able to help 130 Nova students to continue their Eikaiwa lessons without further expenditure. I think that although the schools name i.e Michaels English School should have been edited out for possible conflict of interest, that the bulk of what was said was rather interesting. Especially the fact that trends in Eikaiwa are now heading away from the so called Big Four towards private schools operating a Geshya system. As far as a conflict of interests is concerned I do apologize...I was not actually expecting any Japanese wanting to study English to read this article...I thought only to give the general population an idea of how EIKAIWA was written in Kanji and by providing a link to the school ( which is my school I admit ) to show them the other end of the scale ....what I think is a real EIKAIWA. Actually our little Eikaiwa saw NOVA come and go. I do sincerely apologize however and in future will leave this kind of stuff alone. My main interest is in fact aikido and have been studying that here in Japan for the last 20 years....maybe I should try to write about that instead? 777Metatron777 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metatron, I put my response on your talk page

Saw you changed GABA to Gaba, but per the company website, it is an acronym and is noted as such in the article. Please take a second look, thanks ! Statisticalregression (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article needs to be moved to reflect that. The article name was changed before the acronym info was added. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Debito Arudou never argued that the review was defamatory or libelous. To his credit, he also never threatened a lawsuit. We really need to be careful about putting words into other people's mouths during this talk because the minute we do that, it inhibits free editing, creates intimidation, and causes systemic bias in our articles. I'm hoping that you'll retract the comment about Arudou asserting that it was "defamatory." J Readings (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Statisticalregression. You have new messages at Talk:Death_of_Lindsay_Hawker#POV_-_Article_naming.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Statistical Regression, Alex MacIntosh88 here. No one has responded to my previous post on the Gaba article talk page. Do you think it would be acceptable to remove the note on the front page, given that they didn't give any details of bias and didn't bother to even write anything in the talk page?

[User:Alex MacIntosh88|Alex MacIntosh88]] (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was living in Japan at the time of the Baker controversy, and found Devlin's reporting to be informative and credible. Remember, Devlin was an ardent supporter of Baker at first, but changed his opinion after his magazine's reporters began finding contradictions and inconsitencies in Baker's and his supporters' stories. I use Metropolis as a source in Wikipedia all the time. In fact, if you check my contribution history [1], you can see that I just used it as a source on Japanese gambling games articles. Although Baker's supporters don't appear to like the reporting done by Metropolis on the Baker case, no one has shown that the magazine's reporting was incorrect. Anyway, the text in that article is NPOV, making it clear that it is only Devlin's and Metropolis opinion that is being given. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember to check Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand tomorrow to see if any other publications picked up on the Metropolis reporting. If not, I still believe that Metropolis is a reliable source on the topic, because as I noted the magazine was originally a strong supporter of Baker's until the magazine's reporters discovered, as they claimed, that they had been lied to. Cla68 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites 4 short sources, but no full source information is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]