Talk:Metropolis (free magazine)

Controversy Section Deletion

SparkZilla - Re your claims of un-verifiability of the above deleted section.

Verifiability is Wikipedia official policy.

Verifiability is to be considered in conjunction with NOR and NPOV.

Verifiability:

• Articles should contain material published by a reliable source. (reliable source is a Wikipedia guideline)

I have cited material published by a reliable, third-party published source. There is no reason to believe that the sources are of a dubious reliability with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Neither can I find a alternative reliable source which casts doubt on on the editorial integrity of the Japan Traveller magazine. The claims are not of an "exceptional" nature requiring a stronger source than I have given.

I believe that the sources are reliable because:

Readers can check that this material has been published by a reliable source by looking at the Japan Traveler magazine dated November 1999.

• Editors adding new material should also cite that source.

This I have done.

• The onus is, as the editor adding the material, on me to cite the sources.

This I have done.

NOR:

No original research is Wikipedia official policy.

The material is not original research and is drawn from published, reliable sources that can be found. It is not my personal unpublished opinion, theory or view. Neither does it advance any particular position I may hold. I have produced a reliable source in support of the material.

NPOV:

Neutral point of view is Wikipedia official policy.

I am not associated with either Metropolis/Tokyo Classified nor Japan Traveller. I have represented Mr Gibbs' views fairly and without bias - that have been published by a reliable source. I have not asserted that Mr Gibbs' claims are true. I have characterised Mr Gibbs claims and not engaged in them.

Lastly, The material is verifiable and I object to your removing this material. Following Wikipedia guidelines, if you believe the material to be un-sourced, there are several options open to you - including but not limited to: considering moving the material in question to the talk page; adding the {{tl:fact}} template; tag the article by adding {{tl:not verified}} or {{tl:unreferenced}}, It is not necessary to delete it outright. I request that you respond giving your reasons why you believe this material to be un-verifiable.61.195.202.121 09:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V Burden of Evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

1. I have checked the Japan Traveler website, but there is no reference to the item, even in the issue you mention.

2. Even if there was such an item, Japan Traveler does not constitute a credible source.

from WP:V Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s). (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

3. Creating such a large "controversy" sectION violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

4. The item on the court case is also unverifiable by any external source.

You have no credible sources so the material should be removed.

[1]Jimbo Wales: I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is

better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it

back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a Barnstar

Sparkzilla 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The burden of evidence does indeed lie with me as the editor of additional material. I have cited the Japan Traveler website, which did indeed present the material I refer to, even if it is not on-line now does not mean that the material ever existed. Please cite Wikipedia policy which has to show that past material must still be viewable now to be a credible source.

You have neglected to address my reference to the article which appeared in the Japan Traveler magazine which is easily verifiable - have you checked that also? Please cite you source (according to Wikipedia policy) for your claim that the Japan Traveler magazine is a source "of dubious reliability" and a "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." Otherwise it is merely your opinion.

I am happy to include the material within the body of the article rather than a separate section.

Furthermore, instead of deleting the material you should follow Wikipedia guidelines which I outlined above

202.213.156.202 14:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We only have your word that the article ever existed. You cannot show a source for the information therefore it should not be included on the page.

As for the dubious reliability part, the burden of proof is on you to show that Japan Traveler is a reliable source, not for others to disprove it. Even then you should note that "Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Reliable means a newspaper article.

You have no original article, you have to prove that Japan Traveler is a reliable source, and you also do not have a truly reliable source as a backup. In such cases Wikipedia policy (as noted by Jimbo Wales above) is to agressively keep the information off the page.Sparkzilla 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As the originator of the material, I can show a source, as the original article still exists in the November 1999 copy of the Japan Traveller magazine, which I have already cited. Readers can check that this material has been published by a reliable source by looking at the magazine. Indeed the printed magazine source is better than a website as, according to Wikipedia (WP:RS) policy under Persistance: "If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution."

For the record, are you saying that the material does not appear in the November 1999 issue of the magazine?

Further, the claims made are not of an "Exceptional" nature (again see (WP:RS) and do not have to be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources.

Japan Traveller is a reliable primary source.

Japan Traveller was a free distribution color monthly city guide and classified ads magazine for Tokyo's English-speaking community. It provided commentary on Japan-related political, social and community issues such as immigration, police and human rights. It also included a regular Science & Culture section; CD Reviews and guides to places of interest in the Kanto area. Examples of the magazine back-issues can be found at The Japan Traveler website [2]

The source is not of a dubious nature and in the absence of any verifiable cliams to the contrary, I propose that the material be included.220.157.144.78 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Burden of Prooof As the editor placing material, the burden of proof is on you to show that the article exists, that it comes from a credible source, and that its information, which is exceptional and potentially libelous is confirmed by other sources.

Inviting editors to check the print copy of a magazine that may or may not exist is not credible. It would be different if you invited them to check a newspaper or a well-known magazine.

Exceptional claim A claim of "fraud" is an exceptional claim. According to WP:RS a red flag should be raised when an editor adds 'Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known'. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. You dont even have the original article!!!

Self Published WP:RS The article, if it does even exist, would also come under self-published sources. Mr Gibbs, the author of the article, is also the publisher.

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Please note the "not been subject to any independent fact checking" part.

Primary Sources You say Japan Treveler is a reliable primary source. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

Notability and Credibility I seriously doubt Japan Traveler can pass any notability test. The magazine apparently had few pages, no notable journalists or stories, a short lifespan (it stopped publication six years ago), and apparently low distribution. It is not up to editors to prove that your source is not credible, you must prove its crediblity.

Also, if I understand it correctly, Japan Traveler would have been a competitor to Metropolis, which would further undermine the credibility of the source.

So you have

• No source
• No credibility in the source
• No notability of the source
• Self-published source
• Conflict of interest
• Primary source with no confirmation from a reliable secondary source
• Exceptional content that needs confirmation from a reliable source
• Potentailly libelous content that needs confirmation from a reliable source

The point is moot anyway. Metropolis has its circulation verified by Japan's Audit Bureau of Circulations since 2000. It is exactly this type of unverifiable content that Wikipedia is designed to reject. Sparkzilla 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noted your opinion and will return to this after the New Year break with with my decision and a view to take this to an informed wikipedia authority. 70.23.153.146 03:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your in-line format edit - it kind of reduces the impact, don't you think? Since circulation is about figures it is germane here to touch upon the claimed figures - which I have added. I can find no evidence that Metropolis responded to the Japan Traveler's claims with certification, nor can I find any reference to certification in 2000. I have therefore removed those unverifiable claims. The 2006 certificate is a primary source - a secondary one would be better. Small point though. 221.253.85.230 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, you are editing for "impact". Please keep an encyclopedic tone. I have added the full numbers of the claim. Sparkzilla 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, you removed the Tokyo Weekender reference to circulation figures citing "Hearsay". According to my Oxford Concise "Hearsay" (noun) is "rumor, gossip".

Rumor and gossip are precisely that...until a reliable source is provided for it. Remember the basic tenet of Wikipedia - "verifiability not truth". Are you suggesting that Tokyo Weekender, a publication with a 30-year history with the article written by perhaps one of Japan's most respected journalists, Corky Alexander, a long-time associate member of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan and the Tokyo chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Tokyo American Club is unreliable?

In fact, the more I look at this article, the more I have doubts about it. I mean, really...where is the notability? The only notable thing I can imagine is that it is the only English language magazine with an Japan ABC certification - even then, it's borderline. It used to say it was the largest distribution, but now even that's disappeared!

Look at the rest of the article: So, Metropolis had interviews with Shintaro Ishihara, footballer Nakata Hidetoshi and Peruvian ex-President Alberto Fujimori - great, but unless those interviews can be shown to have contained something notable - for example some groundbreaking news that had particular relevance for Metropolis, or it broke some newsmaking story (extreme example - the Washington Post's breaking of Watergate) it's like "so what".

Same for the history section - is there anything there notable? Possibly the censorship issue by the Daily Yomiuri - *IF* it could be shown to have had, for example, any kind of industry repercussions somewhere. Also, perhaps the Baker controversy - *IF* it could be expanded to show why it makes Metropolis notable.

As for the rest of the stuff like the glitterball, the namechange, the child abductions and the podcast - again, it's like "so-what" eg) If the Metropolis was the first magazine to have a podcast, or someone really notable was doing it, or it used some amazing new technology - then yeah, put it in - All these things may by true, but are just useless facts which have no encyclopedic value and make the article appear no more than a puff-piece of advertising.

Given this article and it's holding company's Wikipedia article "Crisscross" were both started and are vigorously "maintained" by Sparkzilla, who goes to great lengths to remove anything that could be percieved as detrimental - I perceive a CoI here as well. An article should contain both negative and positive aspects if reliable. Article for Deletion unless improved. 221.253.85.230 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that exeptional claims require multiple sources. The Weekender allegation has no credible source. It's a an unsourced rumor. I don't even see an entry for Weekender on Wikipedia. Try to find the Japan Traveler artcle on the web - I can't.

The other items are well-sourced. Metropolis broke the story that Baker's story was inconsistent - it's clearly notable, and Baker has his own extensive page to show it. Glitterball and Podcast launch, Yomiuri dispute all have reliable third-party sources. Interviews with celebrities show notability (and can be sourced in the magazine if that's really, really, really necessary). Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the magazine as its own source for certain items.

Do not add the Notability tag again. This article has already survived AFD on notability grounds and adding it again is bad faith.

You can take it to a higher source, but given your posting history I dont't think yu will get very far. Sparkzilla 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your voracious removal of anything here perceived as detrimental, really only points to one thing. And don't tell me how to spend my time. Weekender is a reliable source and since even your wonderful Metropolis magazine did two articles on Corky Alexander (including his obituary) I would say he was notable as well. It is entirely irrelevent whether weekender has a wikipedia entry or not. A wikipedia entry is not a prerequisite for a reliable source. If fact Wikipedia rules state that it in itself cannot be used as a source. Indeed I do have another source as I have a copy of Japan Traveller in front on me. You will be aware that it is not necessary for a source to appear on the web to be used. Further, my posting history and your opinion of it are again irrelevent. I agree that the information included is sourced, as you well know I am saying that they are unencylopedic. Why are you so desperate to have this removed? 221.253.85.230 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your posting history is highly relevant - it shows that you are not interested in being part of the WP community, but are simply interested in adding negative information about Metropolis. You are acting in bad faith.

Once again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I have checked the Japan Traveler website, and Google, and even the Internet Archive and have not found the original claim anywhere. To add a second-hand claim is hearsay and it will be deleted (as the policy says clearly) until you can find proper sources. Sparkzilla 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider it such an exceptional claim? 221.253.85.230, please, if you have a copy of Japan Traveller, that should be enough for you to make a proper citation. Sparkzilla, you suggest 221.253.85.230 has no interest in being part of the WP community, but what about the fact that he's trying to make this article better? You yourself seem to have few interests in Wikipedia except furthering Metropolis and Crisscross publishing (well, that and adding the Richard Gere gerbil story, no offence). if Sparkzilla cares for what the consensus says, I say put that quote back. If there really is a problem with the citation, add a fact-tag rather than just bluntly removing it. Heatedissuepuppet 19:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a wide and varied history.

A claim of fraud is exceptional by any measure. Such claims need to be backed up with the strictest of sources. So what sources do you have? You have a comment by the editor of an extremely non-notable publication that casts doubt on a claim made by an even less well-known publication. That by definition is unreliable.

Even then, against that you have an ABC certificate that verifiably shows Metropolis circulation. This is exactly the kind of claim that Wikipedia is designed to keep out. You are really clutching at straws. Sparkzilla 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIV (Sparkzilla's edit summary for the above comment was "pathetic"). Now, there might be an ABC certificate, but previously, there wasn't, is that incorrect? Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself, if I'm not mistaken, your previous reasoning for not including the JT as source was that the URL had become inactive - now there is additional evidence that JT made this report, so what seems to be the problem? But hey, let's compromise - let's include the statement with a fact tag, and if the anon IP has not made a proper citation from the magazine itself in, let's say a week, THEN you can delete it. That seems fair to me. Heatedissuepuppet 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sp - It's a an unsourced rumor. I don't even see an entry for Weekender on Wikipedia. Try to find the Japan Traveler artcle on the web - I can't.

Whether a source has a Wikipedia entry or not is irrelevent. Further, whether the Japan Traveler article appears on the web or not is irrelevent. Indeed, the fact that it exists in print is perceived as better than a web entry - look up "persistance" of sources.

Sp - The other items are well-sourced. Metropolis broke the story that Baker's story was inconsistent - it's clearly notable, and Baker has his own extensive page to show it. Glitterball and Podcast launch, Yomiuri dispute all have reliable third-party sources. Interviews with celebrities show notability (and can be sourced in the magazine if that's really, really, really necessary). Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the magazine as its own source for certain items.

It's not a question or not whether they are well sourced - it's a question of "Are they encyclopedic?" As I said above, the Baker entry is probably OK. The Glitterball, Podcast and interviews are irrelevent factiods unless they can be shown to be notable.

Sp- Your posting history is highly relevant

Providing I am not vandalising pages and acting within Wiki policy, it matters not whether I edit 1 page or a hundred. You are just trying to deflect from the issue at hand.

Sp- You have a comment by the editor of an extremely non-notable publication

Let's look at the editor and weekender:

Corky Alexander - s a civilian, he later lived in Nagoya, working on publications for the U.S. military, before joining the staff of the Pacific Stars and Stripes. He then worked for a time on the editorial staff of the Asahi Evening News. In 1962, Corky started his own company, Image Public Relations.

In 1965, he began publishing the Tokyo American newspaper for members of the American Club and, later, various publications, including Holiday in Japan, KORUS, Delta, Pacific Crossroads and PA&E. He even launched the ACCJ Journal.

It was on Feb. 13, 1970, when the first edition of Weekender hit the streets of the Japanese capital, and the foreign community in Tokyo- Yokohama had its own newspaper.

A journalist that both the US Ambassador and British Ambassador to Japan pay tribute to is notable.

I was so sorry to hear about Corky's untimely death. His energy, warmth and sense of humor will be sorely missed in Tokyo, and I know a lot of former Embassy folk will be saddened to hear of his passing.

I always enjoyed my conversations with him and recall the first interview Nancy and I gave--even before arriving in Tokyo--was with Corky for the Tokyo Weekender. He will remain in our hearts as a steadfast friend of the Embassy.

Sincerely,

Howard H. Baker, Jr. Ambassador of the United States of America

[3]

and

We at the Embassy were very sad to hear the news in your letter about Corky Alexander's death. We send you and all the members of his family out most heartfelt condolences.

Corky played a vital role in the lives of the foreign community here. He will be very sadly missed, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Yours sincerely,

Sir Stephen Gomersall Ambassador, British Embassy Tokyo

[4]

as well as fellow journalists:

Corky was an example to all journalists serving in Tokyo. We shared a common interest in jazz, and Tokyo Weekender did sterling service in letting jazz fans in Tokyo know what was happening. I shall miss him.

Les Coles Staff Writer, The Daily Yomiuri

[5]

Even Devlin's own publications, who your are trying to defend here as reliable sources found him notable enough to post an obitury and feature not once but TWICE in the magazine.

[6][7] [8]

Now to the weekender:

The Tokyo Weekender is a tabloid-sized newspaper that has been serving the Tokyo-Yokohama community—both foreign expatriate residents and their Japanese neighbors—for over a quarter of a century. Distributed at no cost at key outlets throughout the Kanto Plain and via home delivery to each subscriber of The Daily Yomiuri newspaper, The Weekender reaches an enormous number of interested readers—tourists, visitors on business in Japan and residents alike. Our paper is circulated to readers for gratis pick-up in leading hotels, supermarkets, airline offices, tourist agencies, cafes, private clubs and bookstores—in addition to our Daily Yomiuri exposure.

The primary function of Tokyo Weekender is to report to our readers events of substance and interest happening in the most populous land area in the world. We pride ourselves on covering the local angle in the Tokyo-Yokohama neighborhood, largely the activities of the residents from over the world who live and work here. We concentrate on local news items that the daily English-language press hasn't the space—or inclination—to explore: school activities, church events, social activities. In short, we accentuate the daily lives and interesting occurrences that make Tokyo-Yokohama the most lively, interesting community anywhere. And we try to chronicle these events in a equally lively, interesting manner.

Think of it: 29 years. When we began Weekender, Richard Nixon was serving his first term as U.S. President; George C. Scott won the Academy Award for "Patton"; Alexander Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for Literature; Frank Howard of the Washington Senators led the American League in home runs (44) and runs batted in (126); Yukio Mishima committed hara-kiri ; Harold Wilson was just bowing out as Prime Minister of Great Britain; Jimi Hendrix died.

Twenty-nine years of service to our community!

When we first came onto the Tokyo-Yokohama scene, the foreign community was primarily business-based. That situation has radically changed in the interim, due, in part to the dramatic influx into Japan foreign teachers, students of Japanese, many young men and women of many nationalities advising financial houses, the increased commercial exchange between Japan and the rest of the world. Our principal readership, however, remains firmly rooted within the business periphery, executives and their families who are decision makers, who live in the most commodious accommodations, those in the upper strata of the economic spectrum.

Recent demographic surveys have proven that a large segment, almost 15 percent, of our readers is composed of educated influential Japanese who have English as their second language.

The Tokyo Weekender is respected within this community as a solid, dependable medium. Among many of our longtime readers, we are considered their "hometown newspoaper" covering specialized events and activities not to be found in any other publication in the community. This respect that we enjoy— and greatly appreciate—naturally extends to our advertisers who consider the bi-weekly Tokyo Weekender as the most effective way of getting their sales message to this major market—a readership with both the desire and the means to enjoy their products and services.

Distribution of The Weekender, published by Image Publications K.K., currently stands at 35,000 copies per issue (we now appear on the first and third Fridays of each month). Thus the reader-to-edition ratio is a confirmed 3:1, giving us a regular readership of approximately 105,000 within the Tokyo-Yokohama area. [9]

| Distribution and |DEMOGRAPHICS

>Sp - Even then, against that you have an ABC certificate that verifiably shows Metropolis circulation.

So, We can discount the few hundred years since the invention of the printing press before the ABC scheme came into existance then? The fact is that at the time of the Japan Traveler article Metropolis (then Tokyo Classified) did not have ABC, indeed it was in response to Gibbs' claims that the TC got certification at 30,000 copies.

In my next post I will address the Japan Traveler article. 221.253.85.230 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Weekender confirmation of Japan Traveler unreliability

Now that you have spent so long confirming that Alexander is a reliable authority on Tokyo publishing then you will accept Alexander's opinion that both Japan Traveler, the writer, and the writer's claims are unreliable and unverifiable.

1. Alexander calls it "magazine" in inverted commas - not notable, not reliable
2. Alexander says that he has never heard of Japan Traveler before it made the claim - not notable or reliable.
3. Alexander calles the publication "tacky" - confirming its unreliability
4. Alexander calls it "little" - confirming its insignificance. If the Weekender thinks it's little it must be miniscule.
5. Alexander casts doubt on the claim "While I'm not certain of Tokyo Classified's circulation figures (nor is, I'm certain, James C. Gibbs)" -- confirming the claims unreliability and unverifiability
6. Alexander says that the writer is a "newcomer", "wet behind the ears" -- confirming the unreliability of the writer
7. Alexander claims that the Japan Traveler writer has made errors in an article about Weekender - confirms unreliability of writer and publication
8. Alexander notes that the writer is just looking for attention by taking potshots at his "journalistic betters" - unreliability of writer

And other issues...

1. Op-eds cannot be used to claim facts, as has been done here.
2. As it stands the wording twists an article positive to Metropolis/Tokyo Classified into a negative - misrepresentation of the source.
3. Japan Traveler is an unreliable an non-notable source. Tiny, unverified, print run. Few pages. Stopped publishing six years ago.
4. Written primarily by one person. There is a strong case to say the article is self-published.
5. The article was written by a competitor. Claims by competitors are not reliable.
6. There is no mention of this apparently serious fraud claim in any newspaper.
7. Metropolis has its circualtion verified by ABC.
8. There is no record of the original article on the Japan Traveler site, Google or the Internet Archive.
9. The only person that can block a site on the Internet Archive is the site owner. If even the original site owner has made a positive decison to block the article from the web, then it should under no circumstances re-appear in Wikipedia.
10. There is no third-party confirmation of any facts.
11. Exceptional content needs confirmation from multiple reliable sources
12. Potentially libelous content needs confirmation multiple reliable sources

Read WP:V. All of it. As the editor placing material, the burden of proof is on you to show that exceptional and potentially libelous claims are confirmed by other sources. Note this from Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

This material has so many problems that it will never be acceptable. The only way the material could ever be included is for you to satisfy all of the above, and then find a consensus of editors to add. This is exactly the kind of dubious claim from non-notable vanity publications that Wikipedia is designed to exclude.

Please also note that I will not debate this matter further here. If you really want to waste your time tying to get this material included then you are required to take this through the dispute resolution process, where I will simply cut-and-paste the above list for the benefit of any interested editors. In the meantime the material, by policy, stays out. Sparkzilla 01:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you intend to remove that material without even replying to other contributors' comments on this talk page, you will be breaking a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example, Wikipedia:Consensus. That material is not libelous, and I doubt that anybody but you will suggest it is. Heatedissuepuppet 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metropoliscover.jpg

Image:Metropoliscover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's Glitterball edit

Will someone remove the header and cut down the Glitterball section to match the rest of the page text. The party is a notable, part of our business, but does not deserve either its own section, or the extensive coverage given to it in the recent edit. A single sentence would be fine. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 11:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla again?

Wha tha? Why is Sparkzilla contributing to this article? This is clearly a conflict of interest. You are CEO of Crisscross and Metropolis. If I were you, I would just walk away from this and let other people, for better or worse, take care of this article.DDD DDD 14:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla can do whatever he wants to do because Sparkzilla is always right, if you worked for him you would know that!

Placeholder for removed (unsourced & non-notable) material. Please re-add if it can be sourced

1. Metropolis is a free full-color 64-80 page weekly city guide and classified ads magazine published by Crisscross K.K. for Tokyo's English-speaking community.
2. The magazine is distributed to locations throughout Tokyo, Yokohama and Chiba and claims a circulation of 30,000.
3. (The magazine) comprises four sections: feature articles and interviews with Japanese and foreign celebrities, an events guide; bar and restaurant listings and classified ads. The magazine also (releases a weekly podcast).
4. The first issue was published on February 26, 1994.
5. ...and was originally distributed as an insert in The Daily Yomiuri and The Japan Times and by hand at various Tokyo locations popular with the English-speaking community, which had grown due to the worldwide attention given to Japan's bubble economy
6. ...mainly (to embassies, hotels,) record stores.
7. In 2003, the magazine was renamed Metropolis and the format changed to include a weekly news round up and commentary on Japan-related political, social and community issues, such as Yasukuni Shrine, whaling, Women's rights in Japan, and Japan's involvement in World War II.
8. The magazine releases a weekly podcast.
9. (External Link) Metropolis podcast
10. (Category) Japanese magazines

David Lyons 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged?

The article for chrisscross was said to be merged here, but it seems to me that in fact it was deleted. Either the following information should be included into this article, the crisscross article should be brought back, or the article chrisscross should be AfD'd. Policy should be followed.

Crisscross K.K

Company type	Private
Industry	Publishing : Internet
Founded	Tokyo, Japan (1993)
Headquarters	Omotesandō, Tokyo
Key people	Mark Devlin CEO & Publisher Mary Devlin, Deputy CEO, Co-founder
Products	Metropolis : Crisscross News
Website	www.crisscross.com

This article is about a company; for other meanings, see Criss Cross.

Crisscross K.K. is a privately held company based in Tokyo, Japan, founded in 1993 by Mark and Mary Devlin.

The company was formed to publish Tokyo Classified (now Metropolis), a weekly classified ads freepaper for Tokyo's English-speaking community.

From February 1994 to January 2000 the company also operated Crisscross Internet, an Internet Provider business that allowed customers to connect to the Internet anonymously.

In June 2000, Crisscross started Japan Today , an interactive news site.

In December 2005, the Company expanded its news coverage to include U.S. and world news and renamed the site "Crisscross News". The news site name reverted back to Japan Today in October 2006.

In March 2006 the company launched Crisscross, a social networking service.

Crisscross KK also operates a boutique creative agency, called Crisscross Creative.

External links

• Metropolis website
• Crisscross Social Network
• Japan Today
• Crisscross Creative

132.239.1.230 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate for speedy deletion?

Given that Metropolis is no longer relevant or noteworthy, could this page be a candidate for speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephatsheput (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolis (free magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.markdevlin.com/Articles/businessam/businessam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314003058/http://www.ea-tokyo.com/seminars/seminarsummaries/20040907.php to http://www.ea-tokyo.com/seminars/seminarsummaries/20040907.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)