User talk:Yoko Hashimoto

October 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shigeto Kawahara, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Listen, I am getting fed-up being called a vandal by people who apparently have no idea what they are doing. Please read the edit summaries in the article's history and the discussion on Mallneck's talk page. Please be civil and assume good faith. If you think you have a good reason for the inclusion of the phrase " evidenced by the Form 990 salary and financial data" in the article (as said before, incomprehensible even for most Americans, let alone non-Americans), please discuss it ion the article's talk page. Similarly, if you have any reason to replace "National Center for Charitable Statistics" with the non-informative "Nccsdataweb.urban.org", I'd be interested to hear it. And why you removed the header "References" before the "reflist" tag is a mystery, too. Finally, you added the assertion that the Feinstein is "home" to the Litwin-Zucker Center, but none of the three references even contains the word "Feinstein". Unless you have a better reference, that information will have to go. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please explain this to me. Why are you telling me to be civil? After all YOU called ME a vandal without good reason, not the other way around. I try to communicate with you (and Mallneck) and get no response whatsoever. So who's not seeking consensus here? So please tell me what a phrase like "evidenced by the Form 990 salary and financial data" adds to this article? Not even US readers will want this information. And why on Earth would you replace "publisher=National Center for Charitable Statistics" with "publisher=Nccsdataweb.urban.org"??? O am going to revert those changes again. Thanks for adding a real reference for the Litwin-Zucker Center being housed here (after I brought it to your attention that you added references that didn't support anything like that). However, the other references that you put back do not source anything that is said in the article and do not belong there. I will remove those again. Please go to the article talk page and give a rationale for their inclusion, if you think they should remain. If you can obtain consensus on the talk page, they can be re-inserted again, if not, they stay out. --Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]