User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Dispute Resolution

If you have a minute, can you take a look at the situation I've outlined at User talk:OlEnglish#Assistance in Conflict with User:Jack Sebastian and offer your view? I know you generally will tell me straight if I'm in the wrong in this kind of issue :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading through (what I believe is) everything, it appears that Jack Sebastian was just refusing to accept consensus going against him. His argument that people going to the Adobe Dreamweaver article were actually trying to get to the song does not hold any water since the number of visits listed in the discussion is around 5500 or so. Even if you subtracted all of those visits from the Adobe Dreamweaver visits, Adobe Dreamweaver still has over 31000 visits in that time frame. I think the two primary topics bit is stupid given the disparity between the two visit number totals, but oh well... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well, and agree on the two disambigs, but finally decided the best thing to do was just take them all of my watchlist and withdraw from the discussion so I can't read his remarks anymore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is Padakshep page?

Hey Nihonjoe..... I requested a rename of the username Padakshep as it is against the policy of Wikipedia. It has been granted but now under the new username Aalbelaaam , I cannot find the page that I had written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalbelaaam (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can see is your userpage, which was deleted as blatant advertising for the group you represent. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI for why it was deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User page?

Hey, I'm making a userpage for A fellow Wikipedian, and I was wondering if i could use the source of your User page, edited a bit, and obviously cite where i got it from ;) Pilif12p 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though it's fairly complicated, especially if you add in all the things I have. Let me know if you get stuck on something. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Username changing

Hey please please Help me I want to change my Username but I can't !! help me thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounir1994 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You want this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback at Templates for discussion

Hello, Nihonjoe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 23.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fred8615 trying to entice an edit war.

Hello. I do not know where to come with this kind of request, so I have come to you, since you seem to have the right qualifications in terms of user management. Fred8615 has been reverting my edits on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply because he did not agree with them. I will explain the background situation to you now. For about a week ago, I argued on the talk page that the Atomic bombings were war crimes according to international law(judged so by Ryuchi Shimoda v. The State), and added it to Category:World War II crimes because of that. Some have objected and said that it was not ruled to be a war crime in an international court, but a Japanese one. On the advice of Binksternet, I re-created the Category:War crimes in Japan, originally in order to add the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article into a category which reflects the decision of Shimoda v. The State. As you can imagine, Fred8615 reverted my edit on the atomic bombings article again, without giving any kind of reasoning in terms of me breaking against Wikipedia guidelines. Not a single one of my edits have broken against any Wikipedia guideline, and all of them have met the criteria of NPOV, OR and Verifiability. Fred8615's edits(reverts) were all seemingly based on his own opinion and nothing else. Can you warn him to cease his pointless editing which he does for no reason other than his personal dislike of them? Also, the category War crimes in Japan is a good adition to Category:War crimes by country, I believe. I did not make it only to have have something to add the atomic bombings article to, but also to make Wikipedia slightly more accomplished. On a side note, I am aware that there is controversy around calling the atomic bombings of Japan "war crimes". However, when a court comes to that decision, it should be reflected in the corresponding Wiki articles. Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Why_not_under_.22World_War_II_crimes.22_category.3F The discussion that lies as base for everything mentioned.

[1] The article history so you can see his constant reverts.

Please, do something. Thank you. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, first, following the steps at WP:DR as they are designed to help out in a situation like this. Have you done any of that? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Fred6815 what guidelines I was offending with my edits, but he did not give me a response to that. As far as I know, I have kept myself to all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, while he simply was deleting content because he disagreed with it. Apparently there is not noticeboard for such cases. This is why I have come to you. I now went through Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and it seems that my decision to reach someone who has the right user modification abilities was the right one. Is it in your power to do anything about it?--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion, it appears that you are the only one who wants to make the changes you suggest. Every other editor there (9 other editors, to be exact) in the discussion disagrees with your proposal. No other editor agrees with it. While it may be useful to have a mention of the Japanese court case you mentioned, it should only be a mention because that is the only court to make such a ruling (as far as I am aware). I think at this point, it would be best to let the issue drop for now and do more research to see if you can find any other supporting evidence specifically calling the atomic bombings "war crimes". One court case from a likely-biased judge (or judges) is not enough to support anything further. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nine editors which have not come with any kind of reference or source strengthtening their own position, only POV. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to rely on verifiable references and sources rather than "I'll write whatever is in accord with my personal opinion"? However, this is the very reason why I changed my request from adding the article to the World War II crimes category to the War crimes in Japan(where it is specified that the articles within are considered as war crimes in Japan by Japanese juridical decisions). What more is required to add an article within that category, other than referencing the official decision by the Japanese court that the acts described within the article are war crimes? Seriously, the only opposition I am facing is POV and nothing more. This is way below Wikipedia standard.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you asked for my opinion on the issue, and I gave it. The opposition you are facing is no more POV than your insistence that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong. That's why I suggested that you drop the issue for now, and work on locating more reliable sources which discuss the bombings as war crimes. If you don't want to take that advice, that's your choice, but it is the only suggestion I have for you at this point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am correct when stating that the nation of Japan considers the atomic bombings to be war crimes. That is my only point by now. I was simply asking you if you could do anything about the unwarranted revertions.--Raubfreundschaft (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Aside

I generally avoid anything to do with Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki except for the Sannō Shrine and hibakusha; but divorced from its subject, the contours of this thread seem congruent with issues I need to understand better.

Please amplify what you mean by this sentence:

"The opposition you are facing is no more POV than your insistence that you are correct, and everyone else is wrong."

Standing alone, I do understand the follow-up sentence:

"That's why I suggested that you drop the issue for now, and work on locating more reliable sources."

However, I can't quite grasp the implicit links between the two sentences. I take your point, of course; but I don't quite "get it" -- not yet, not really. I am able to conform my edits with suggestions I don't understand, but compliance with good advice becomes only a tactic, not a strategy.

For me, one phrase creates a sharpened context:

"Nine editors which have not come with any kind of reference or source strengthtening their own position, only POV. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to rely on verifiable references and sources rather than "I'll write whatever is in accord with my personal opinion"?

I have redacted the corollary text in order to narrow the focus of an open-ended policy question about WP:Consensus and our WP:Five Pillars.

As I see it, this thread illustrates a dichotomy which I have encountered before, but which I have not yet resolved satisfactorily. --Tenmei (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bishōjo game

While the number of links may be give a lack of consensus, it was clear when looking at things closer that "Bishōjo game" is only used by ANN and a couple of academic sources at best. Therefore while there isn't a clear consensus which is best, it is clear that the current version does not meet WP:COMMONNAME. Either Bishojo game or Bishoujo game are the more common ones used outside the anime and academic community in addition to inside those two. Gal game, is not used much and often used when citing Welcome to the NHK. That's why I think the topic needs looking into. If you want I can seek a larger consensus.陣内_Jinnai 02:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any one as an obvious "winner", so I still think it should remain where it is. Surely there is something more productive for you to do than to worry about an article that uses the correct romanization and has redirects form all the other possibilities? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can do that in addition. :P Anyway, while there is no clear distinction between the other two, the rules are pretty clear with WP:COMMONNAME that the current version does not in any way demonstrate it is the common name and I cannot fathom a reason this should ignore the rules because the other two major terms are not commonly used. However, I can bring this up at WP:VN and WP:Anime if you wish.陣内_Jinnai 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take it wherever you wish. I don't have a personal interest in this beyond disagreeing with your interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

UnitedPress block

As you are apparently the blocking admin on User:UnitedPress, you might want to review the contribution history of new user Ddjeams. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them for having a spammy username and also spamming. If they are just spamming, I recommend reporting them at WP:COIN. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ping 2

I have sent you an e-mail. This is the "Week 3 status report." --Tenmei (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I received it and read it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. A re-drafted, shorter update was sent in response to comments from Doc James. --Tenmei (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, saw and read that one, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The McChicken costs $1

Has now reappeared as The Chicken costs $1 (No "Mc"). What is usually done now, leave the new account as is and leave the old one blocked? Is the new name acceptable per WP:U? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, as that username is not violating WP:U. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nihonjoe. You have new messages at The Utahraptor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Bowei Huang 2

Just curious about the history here. You effected the renaming here [2] but the user's history seems to have vanished without comment from both his user page and talk page. As I had been involved in a number of efforts to help this user through many Ref Desk questions, I wonder why all these records seem to have vanished. Bielle (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You can view all of their contributions here, and see the histories of their userpage and talk page here and here, respectively. Is there some other history you need? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Following your links, I see why you are puzzled. I checked the article several times over several days, and did not see the "View history" tab on any of those occasions. Curiouser and curiouser! Thanks for your response and for not wondering aloud about my mental capacity. Bielle (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of King Arthur's Tools

I came back to check on my first Wikipedia contribution page (King Arthur's Tools) and saw that it had been deleted for being an advertisement. I want to be able to contribute to Wikipedia and this is a brand I'm a big fan of, their tools are great. Can you give me any advice on how I could change the page to make it more suitable for WIkipedia? They've been on television (I discovered them from a feature on Martha Stewart!) and in many wood-crafting magazines, so I think they are a notable enough brand to be included. Would a stub in the power tools section be more appropriate? Any advice and help would be appreciated, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh05f (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article and following the direction there on how to ensure an article is kept. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of PayLid

Hello. I'm not sure how long ago but you deleted the article I was writing about PayLid. I'm not sure why really since I cannot even see the article to know what your reasoning behind it was. It was simply meant to be an informative article regarding the company and their history --Jungliss (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (EST)

It didn't meet WP:CORP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Helen Keller quotation

Wikiquote explains that the following is misattributed -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

I learned these words as a Helen Keller quotation:

I am only one, but I am one.

I can not do everything, but I can do something.

I must not fail to do the something that I can do.

For me, this has been meaningful in a range of contexts. --Tenmei (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check

Please look at my recent edits, the usernames. They are disruptive and piling up fast. wiooiw (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Lover" accounts seemed to have stopped. Thanks for the blocks. wiooiw (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the line between a sensible move and malicious move

to call a sensible move(not to mention, much less discriminative change at wiki) a malicious move, is a mystery to me. you might as well be blocked for personal attack. Clari 2010 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your moves are malicious as you are trying to force your POV against the established consensus for the titling of those articles. You don't seem to be paying attention, and are therefore being very disruptive just to push your POV. If you want to change consensus, open a discussion about it, but do not continue your page moving. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request move

Hi 穣! Please move Ichirō Motono to Motono Ichirō per MOS:JP#Names. User:Therequiembellishere edited Meiji-related people articles like this. I reverted as far as I could but there might be some more. Please check it if it's OK when you see any Meiji-related people's article. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Oda Mari (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong block note

This one. The username was misleading because the user is most likely not Chris Colfer, not because it was a promotional account. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 10:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter as Chris Colfer is a well known celebrity and therefore the username is inappropriate unless they can show they are named Chris Colfer, too. Since that's an incredibly uncommon name, the likelihood is pretty low. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed my point. So I emphasized it a bit. (I think the block notice may have been confusing for the user.) ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion. I didn't miss your point, but you missed my point. I blocked the account for the same reason as an account named "Michael Jackson" or "Dick Cheney" would be blocked. That's the only reason the account was blocked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to seem like I'm making a big deal out of this but I just have to reply. I'm talking about the block notice. It says "we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website /--/" It's not relevant to using the name of a celebrity. Don't you admins have like different templates for this? You should. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 06:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there's not a separate block notice for celebrity names. Technically, a celebrity name could be considered a company since that is how celebrities are marketed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, but it doesn't really make too much sense. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we work with what we have. If oyu can come up with better wording for the notice, feel free to propose it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Page 'SplitWorks'

Hello,

You deleted previously created page 'Split Works' citing CSD G12: unambiguous copyright infringement.

As per the wikipedia entry on 'Copyright Violations' section entitled 'Dealing with Copyright Infringement'

"Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation"

Prior to being deleted after its initial inception, the SplitWorks page was copied in its entirety to another site 'Rock In China' (herein, RIC) (http://www.rockinchina.com)'s Wiki. As the owner of the posted information, we were in correspondence with the RIC admin who recognized ownership, and agreed to take down the material temporarily in order to afford us another opportunity to repost the entry.

We will be reposting the entry at this time and will be monitoring it to ensure its continued presence. If there is any way we can help to clarify the situation, or ensure future deletion we can further converse on Split Work's discussion page, or I can be contacted directly at joshuag [at] spli-t.com. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.6.140 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The page was a copyright violation because it used (almost exclusively) text copied from a non-free source. This is specifically disallowed here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is better?

User:Therequiembellishere has recently edited Japanese political and people articles a lot and changed date like this and I had to edited like this. Thinking about Japan-related articles are using the mdy format and the consistency, the dmy format is also correct though, I don't think it's helpful. Besides, he created the Tokugawa piped link. I think it's ambiguous. What do you think? Would you please talk to him? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as the date format/order is consistent within each article, it's fine to use either format. I prefer the day first in English as it makes more sense to me (smallest to largest). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. So my edit on Saitō Makoto was not wrong, wasn't it? The rest of the dates were mdy order. Out of curiosity, how do native en speakers say when they read aloud dmy description? 9th of June in 2010? Or June 9th in 2010? Oda Mari (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on the person. If I saw "9 June 2010", I would read it "nine June twenty ten", but others might read it "June ninth twenty ten". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

National Treasure swords

Hi Nihonjoe! Since it came up in this discussion, I was wondering the following for the future featured list candidacy of List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords)... Unlike other national treasure lists, I decided a long time ago not to include the official Japanese name of the treasures because they are all very similar: "太刀〈銘国宗／〉", "短刀〈銘行光／〉", etc. Instead I split the information into two columns: "Type" and "Signature". The type column does not have any kanji because there are wikipedia articles to all kinds of Japanese swords. The signature column has kanji and reading. This has the advantage of being able to sort the table by signature and looks more readable in my opinion. Do you think it is a good idea to deal with it like this, or would it be better to have a column with the full names as written in the database? bamse (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the way you've done it is perfectly fine. There's no need to repeat the kanji for the type all through the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to close that RfC on WP:NOPRO after my begging on AN! I'm just wondering, though, where do I go from here? What happens to the guideline status of NOPRO and how do I go about getting that conclusion into practice at RfPP etc? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the consensus seems in favor of deprecating NOPRO, so you could probably change it to an essay instead of a guideline, then modify whatever needs modifying at RFPP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete renaming

I'm puzzled. The entity responsible for rolling over my contributions as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus has stopped. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It sometimes take a while if you have a lot of edits (which you did). Also, it looks like you (or someone) recreated the account on June 5, apparently by coming here while logged in as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus on another wiki. This may prevent the rest of the edits from transferring over. At this point, I don't have any control over it (and neither do any of the other 'crats). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Toshiki Yui

Hey, if you have a moment, want to take a look at the last bit of this talk page and see if you can offer a better explanation to me that the transliteration and translations of a foreign work do not require sources? You probably saw Timothy Pepper's post at the project about the article, and he'd used almost entirely unreliable sources so they were removed and he's unhappy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TFA protection RFC

Shame I didn't reload the page while (rather slowly and being distracted by stuff in RL) reading all the stuff on there and related pages. Oh well, at least it was interesting to see how someone else closed a long discussion where I'd already decided how to. Peter 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to beat you to the punch on that one. Were you going to close it differently? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind-of. I certainly agree with the assessment that consensus was against WP:NOPRO in the form it took at the start of the RFC, but I wasn't entirely convinced there was a clear consensus to treat TFAs in just the same way as other articles (which is the implication of working under existing protection policy). So I was going to say something along the lines of treating articles on a case-by-case basis, protecting as a last resort; done both without fear of protecting because it was a featured article, but also the bar to protecting should be higher (and with shorter time periods where possible) than normal, taking into account how easy the vandalism is to manage and the presence (or lack of) any good faith IP edits. Your closure had the advantage of being a lot simpler and providing a definite answer, whereas anything I'd have put together would have left some open questions to be decided (mostly at what threshold do you set those deciding factors - at one extreme you'd end up with permanent main page FA protect, which I don't think there was consensus for, at the other you'd rarely protect, ditto.). We'll see what happens - it's not at all something I care passionately about (hence why I thought I met the description of uninvolved admin), and it's not like I disagree with the main point of the close, so I don't want to cause a fuss :) Peter 21:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up note, I see the edits HJ has been doing to WP:NOPRO are in line with how I interpret the RfC's consensus, so seems to be turning out fine. Peter 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, yup. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think common sense is the key on this one, and I agree with the principle of NOPRO, but when you have a guideline overriding the protection policy and not giving admins any room for manoeuvre, something needs to change. Hopefully admins will now feel able to protect the TFA when things are bad without being afraid to do so but perhaps be less trigger happy than for a "regular" article. Thanks to both of you for your efforts in closing it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

CHU

"A Wider Circle". No worries. In a way I appreciate your good faith. C'est la vie. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

For names like that one, I prefer to give them rope and see what they do with it. Since it could mean any number of things, it allows those here to spam to hang themselves, and leaves the others to do whatever they are here for. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please be better informed of situations before getting involved. The post was blocking a legitimate thread.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please get a clue about how templates work and fix the template problem rather than deleting a discussion. The other editor inadvertently used {{hat}} instead of {{hab}}, causing the section below it to be hidden. All that needed to be done was correct the template error. Do not remove that discussion again or you will be blocked for disruption. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me for your mistakes. The thread was a trolling post. You need to get the clue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my mistake. You reverted my edit before I could make the additional correction I mentioned above. And it's not a threat; it's a reality. If you remove other's comments again, you will be blocked. Period. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about your "realities". It will not look good for you to block me for removing a trolling post. You need to apologize and remove the post.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

While the post in question was certainly confusing, you had a history of refactoring that editor's comments several times over the last day or so. The post is going to stay. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is completely false. I demand you provide evidence for this claim that I have been "refactoring that editor's comments several times over the last day or so." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your order is served: [3] (refactoring), [4] (removal instead of fixing the template issue), and [5] (removing them again instead of fixing the template). In addition, DDK2 refactored this one (obviously not you doing it, but I thought I'd mention it anyway). It would be more accurate to say you refactored once and removed twice. Still, you should not be doing that as his comments were not obviously trolling. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The first edit was a revert of the user who refactored my comment to state (NOT TROLLISH BUT REAL INFO). Please also be aware that the user filed a bogus report on AIV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't refactor your comment; he added a comment after yours and didn't sign it. There's a big difference. And filing an AIV report on you, whether bogus or not, has nothing to do with it. He filed it because you refactored/removed his comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are unaware with the English language, adding a parenthesis to something means you are adding on to it. And "has nothing to do with it" is completely false since you are disputing that this user is a troll. This user will most likely be blocked as a sockpuppet of Gaydenver. Why won't you admit that you made a mistake and apologize for it?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't make a mistake in this case, so there's no reason to apologize. I'm not disputing this user is a troll, but rather stating that this particular set of edits doesn't appear to be trollish. And your deflection of the issue here by trying to place the blame on me and the other editor is disingenuous. The edits were not obviously trollish in nature, and you should not have removed them or refactored them. As for my command of the English language, I appreciate your concern, but my English is better than most. I've been a technical writer and editor for many years, so I think I know what I'm doing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's nice but you seem to not understand how parentheses are used. The edits should have been removed because #1 they had nothing to do with the content of the article #2 they were attempting to inflame the earlier IP situation #3 they blocked legitimate discussion. I stand by my removal and I'd like to do it again, but I prefer to be able to write articles and be constructive to wikipedia. I wish you would do the same, and I would like if you apologized for your misguided threats or "realities" of an editor in good standing, and reposting of troll material. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of how parentheses are used as I've known and used English since I was very young (and I always received excellent grades, too, back in the day). What you should have done instead of removing the comments was to tag them as {{unsigned}} and move them below yours. And as I already mentioned, I made no threats. I suggest just moving on and working on something else rather than dwelling on this issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will after you apologize. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, then we're at an impasse as there is nothing to apologize for. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no respect for you. Nothing further to say.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you only have respect for people who abase themselves before for no reason, then you likely don't respect anyone. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, let me be clear. I don't respect you because you cannot admit when you are wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't watch my edits because I admit where I'm wrong all the time. I don't have a problem doing that, but I don't see where I was wrong in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You were wrong to not be properly informed about the situation before involving yourself, threatening to block someone for questioning your decision, and making false claims once it was proven that you were wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the entire situation before doing anything (actually took about an hour), so I think I'm very well versed on the situation. You were told that you would be blocked for continuing to remove someone else's comments for no valid reason, not for disagreeing with me. And I haven't made any false claims in this situation. You may continue to delude yourself into believing so, but it doesn't make it actually true. As we are just going in circles, I'm closing the discussion. I request that you respect that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(unindent) - you're both probably getting too invested in this situation right now. It's not specific to either of you, and there are plenty of eyes on the Barack Obama talk page. Maybe a cup of tea? You're fine experienced editors, so no point letting such a small matter get in the way. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn is the only one getting all worked up about this. He's demanding an apology for something which requires none. I've already moved on; it's up to William S. Saturn if he will do that same. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well, I kinda missed that... as an admin you need a thick skin right? I'll urge WSS to keep cool and maintain a sense of perspective if I have a chance. I was going to remove my comment above, in favor of the AN/I discussion - so feel free to delete this little afterthought or put it within the collapse box. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

Your passive oversight may be needed at Talk:Shinto shrine#Revert. I am posting an alert on the talk pages of the others in the mentorship group; however, I anticipate that none of you will need to intervene.

If something does develop, I agreed in months ago to be guided by Leujohn's active mentoring lead.

The contributions history here + an old dispute thread at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū#Top three shrines cause me to guess that this is precisely the kind of problem which calls for a heads-up. For more background, see also here

In response to an early-2009 dispute, I created Hakozaki Shrine, Usa Shrine and Modern system of ranked Shinto Shrines. The research which went into developing these articles informs my reaction to an otherwise trivial edit here. The small change suggests that this may have something to do with pre-1947 State Shinto ranking.

From 1871 to 1947, the Kanpei-sha (官幣社) identified a hierarchy of government-supported shrines most closely associated with the Imperial family. Included in the highest ranks were these three:

• Usa Shrine, Usa, Ōita—Kanpei-taisha (官幣大社)
• Iwashimizu Shrine, Yawata, Kyoto— Kanpei-taisha, 3rd among the most highly ranked Imperial shrines
• Hakozaki Shrine, Fukuoka— Kanpei-taisha

Before 1947, the mid-range of ranked, nationally significant shrines or Kokuhei Chūsha (国幣中社) included Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū at Kamakura, Kanagawa.

Maybe nothing will come of this, but I will invite Oda Mari and Urashimataro to watchlist Shinto Shrine. We'll see.

Thank you for your investment of time and concern. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Scale back wikibreak enforcer

Could you change User:Extremepro/monobook.js: the Wikibreak enforcer.

Change from:

var date = { year: 2010, month: 12, day: 1};
var time = { hours: 0, minutes: 1, seconds: 0};

to

var date = { year: 2010, month: 11, day: 1};
var time = { hours: 0, minutes: 1, seconds: 0};

.

Thanks. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If I have worked on any volleyball articles, it's only been to correct information or formatting here or there. I've never done much else with any volleyball articles as far as I know. I wish you luck. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHU/S backlog

Come and see. —ΩpenTheWindows™ 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no "backlog". You'll just need to be patient while the 'crats review them. Your request hasn't even been there for an hour yet. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a little impatient. Sorry. —ΩpenTheWindows™ 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nihonjoe. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asked you another question while I had your attention. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Unnecessary stuff

He's causing problems with romanization again, this time at Talk:Hepburn romanization#ゐ/ヰ and ゑ/ヱ. Also, he repeatedly removed the ッジ thread from WT:MOS-JA the other day.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SFCG Co.-Summary please

If you are intending to wipe the page like that please provide a para on what they were doing.andycjp (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wiped it because it was almost exclusively negative and had no sources at all. That is a potential libel suit waiting to happen. Please provide sources if you are going to include so much negative information about a company. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

CC-by-SA 3

I noticed you have restored the files deleted, my problem has been the removal of attributation that was part of the license the problem with occurinng on text mainly, although I also had one image file also changed by someone. If the files or text retain attributation it complies, when its removed if does not, I hope you understand my reason for the deletions, --Rovington (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The only attribution required is included in the file page itself. And the license allows attribution as long as there is proper attribution for the original file. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I request you to remove the File:Descendant chart of John Shaw and Elizabeth Willoughby.pdf‎ its original research and should not have been on wikipedia, I have removed the repeated lineage from the barons articles, the edit was due anyway. On the Rivington article another user is in the process of rewriting it to GA standard so it should not have been reverted.--Rovington (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)--Rovington (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't delete File:Rivington Little Lake Distr.jpg because of cc-by-sa-3.0 withdrawal; the only reason I deleted it was that I'd already moved it to Commons, where you can find it as File:Lakes in Rivington.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that being used as a deletion reason. I apologize. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgiana Houghton

Please undelete the Georgiana Houghton page. If you had been a little less impatient, I would have added the citations that justified having a wikipedia page for this person.

Georgiana Houghton was well known in the 19th C spiritualist movement, was associated with spirit photography, left a legacy of paintings and drawings, was an associate of the Pre-raphaelites and was considered as a precursor artist to the abstract impressionists. She also published two books on spirit photography that are still in print 130 years after her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsimpson1100 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You obviously weren't moving very fast on it since it was tagged a month after you created it (and you hadn't done really anything on it since creating it), and it's been two months since it was deleted. Please provide the refs you want to include so I can see if it's worth undeleting. If the refs aren't good, then it will just be deleted again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS-JA

It seems that I have inadvertantly brought up the tired old discussions because of my recent clarification to the MOS and then responded to Jpatokal about it. The MOS was never changed after either of those first two discussions, but he still thinks that if it's written in katakana and it's not a word native to Japanese prior to the Meiji period, Hepburn does not apply anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again, and he removed the romanization examples I had (all based on the doumoi word) and added {{disputed}}. Although I think this is from the misunderstanding that I was using an existing Okinawan word to show examples of Japanese, Okinawan, and Ainu romanization schemes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh god it doesn't stop. He's going in circles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ainu

Vaguely related, do you have any idea why in some places they use "Aynu" and in others it's "Ainu"? When they refer to the language, it's the former, but to Hokkaido its the latter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen "Aynu", but I suspect it's just an older romanization. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the spelling for Ainu is all based on the standard Japanese spelling that does not use the small I kana that apparently exists in the language that makes it "aynu" rather than "ainu".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, all the scholarly and non-scholarly works I've seen (which is a fair number of them, actually...over 20) spell it "Ainu". That is by far the most common way to spell it in English. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So "Ainu" is the spelling used by the whole world, while "Aynu" is the spelling used by the Ainu themselves? Although to be honest, I've seen an Ainu write it as "Ainu", but I'm not sure why.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to recreate User:Collectonian with {{retired}} so the rename log is not quite so upfront? Might help with some continued issues. (using IP so this request is not tied to my new name). Can email if need better confirmation. Thanks. 74.192.33.242 (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just hid the visibility of the logs. Accomplishes the same thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. While the edit summary on the move during rename is hidden, the from/to target isn't, so its still visible. 74.192.33.242 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That fixed it, thanks. :-) 74.192.33.242 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent week 7 status report. Also, I sent an e-mail in which I proposed a "case study" as a way to build common ground. --Tenmei (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those. I also replied to one of them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New Shinto Task Force project: Shinto

Hi Joe, I know you must be busy with your cabal Admin stuff, but I was wondering if you could help me gather up a few good editors to put some work into the Shinto page. Besides a dearth of references, a lot of it is written poorly or just plain wrong from what I can see. I live in Japan and have been working as a translator for the last year and tour-guide for the last six months. As such I have access to Japanese and English language pamphlets and things like that which are given out at many of the shrines, but I don't know if they are usable. Basically any informed editors you might know or citable books you might be able to suggest would be a big help. Of course if there is anything I can help you with please let me know. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So, any advice? Colincbn (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

God complexes

You always give me good advice on dealing with conflicts (even I don't always follow as well as I should *grin*). How do you recommend dealing with an editor who seems to have a bit of a God complex (i.e. regularly declares implicitly and explicitly that he is better than most, if not all, other editors, "chastizes" people that they should work with humility with him because he "fixed" their mistakes, etc)[6]? I can't really avoid the person since he's insisting on making himself visible at the Films' project and I am a coordinator there until the next election. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The only suggestions I have are to be more careful in how you use Twinkle, and be more careful in the wording of edit summaries by choosing wording which is less likely to be inflammatory. I completely understand that the other editor has a rather high opinion of their own edits as compared to others, but it's still best to be civil. I've also found through my own experience that telling another editor to stay off your talk page doesn't really help matters, and often simply escalates the issue. It's better to calmly explain what the concern is and remain calm even if the other editor goes off the deep end with their comments. I hope that's helpful. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, thanks :-) And I've noticed that (on asking someone to stay away) after someone reported me to ANI for removing their apology from my talk page. :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kentaro Yabuki

I was wondering if you can give the Romaji transliteration of the second work listed on Kentaro Yabuki —Farix (t | c) 18:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good news

A couple of good things happened today: A minor edit here reminded me of an article I created in 2008.

Елисеева is Russian for Elisséeff; and it caused me to remember writing about Serge Elisséeff at Harvard. It will take time for me to figure out how to explain why this seemed helpful.

A more immediate consequence was the opportunity to enjoy effective collaboration. I worked with In ictu oculi in improving the text of William George Aston and Kim Chae-guk. This was a very small illustration of what I hope to encounter whenever I log on to Wikipedia. Good news is good to share. --Tenmei (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you had a good day working on things today. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal Speculative Fiction

I've re-reviewed the portal and left some revised comments at the portal review page. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've responded there. Thanks for all your time in participating there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification

I'm notifying you here because this is where you're most active. I wanted to let you know that I nominated an image that you uploaded, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Von_Karman_vortices_off_Rishiri_Island,_Japan.jpg, for Valued Image on Wikimedia Commons. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the nom. I left some comments there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Martinière

Hello,

I am letting you know that an article you created, Stephan Martinière, has been nominated for deletion, as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work on improving Stephan Martinière. Some of the original batch of deletions were ruled no consensus, but this one looks like the only keep so far; the rest look like either clear keeps, or likely more of the no consensus variety (Mark Harrison (comic artist) and Terese Nielsen, for example). Sue Ellen Brown has been deleted, and Paul Bonner has no support, but many of the successful "rescues" in this case are thanks to the efforts of you and others, so I applaud you for that. Franz Vohwinkel, Nene Thomas, and Randy Post have been subsequently nominated for AFD, if you have anything that you can do for them. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything to support keeping those three articles. Sorry. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying - your efforts are appreciated! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Formerly Deleted Page

Hi Nihonjoe,

I am very new to this Wiki world, so I apologize if my terminology doesn't make sense.

I want to learn about contributing to wikipedia and decided I would like to write an article about my vocal voach, Diana Yampolsky, but see that you have deleted a page that used her name as the title. I'm not sure what this means in terms of my being able to start a new one with the same page name. The message I saw prompted me to contact you, so here I am :) I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be asking you though and I didn't fully understand the reason for why it was deleted, but I haven't seen the old page either, so I don't know what it is referring to anyway. Some kind of copyright issue. I just don't want the same thing to happen to this new one if I'm going to put the time into making it.

Any guidance or information is greatly appreciated

Cheers

R. Tigress (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Roy (I'm supposed to put those tildes in here, right?)

I suggest reading the material found at Wikipedia:Your first article. That page (and the related ones linked from it) will give you a good foundation on which to build. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nihonjoe! So, as long as I follow the guidelines on the "First Article" page, it should be okay for me to revive this formerly deleted page? and I shouldn't have anything to worry about with regards to it being deleted again?

Cheers

R. Tigress (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2

This was started by the user himself, as a recall RFA.

The page, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, leads to what it refers to as "a default procedure and set of criteria", which states, "The venue for re-confirmation is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Following a successful recall petition, the admin submits a new RfA, making clear that if it fails, they will resign. (At the admin's discretion, they can resign first and submit a new RfA at their own convenience.) The standard for the RfA, just as for any RfA, is community consensus: if the user has consensus to remain an admin, the RfA is successful; if they lack such consensus, it is unsuccessful. Admins who resign during or as the result of a recall process are considered to have done so "under a cloud" and should re-apply at RfA to regain adminship."

Therefore, the RFA page is the proper place for this to take place, as initiated by the admin in question. Please re-open it. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That page is not a policy or a guideline, and it can't override WP:RFC/U (which is part of WP:DR, a procedural policy) for discussing concerns about an editor's actions (including admins, bureaucrats, checkusers, overighters, etc.), so WP:RFA is the wrong venue for the discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, the page should be marked as historical and inapplicable, and a note made that admins that open up RFAs on themselves will find them closed by a crat. Can you please do that now? Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I happen to disagree with the notice. It seems to be arbitrary and unilateral, and effectively a sweeping measure (imposed by yourself) that bars any admin from submitting their own self request to undergo an RFA process as outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. I have raised the matter at the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Any editor may open an RFC/U on themselves and accomplish exactly what you describe. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I FULLY support the close!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The stated reasons for your close was totally inappropriate, regardless of what your personal views are with respect to confirmation RFA or with respect to your fellow administrator. I've reverted your close, and the edits you made to Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall because they are grossly and fundamentally incorrect. Given that the Arbitration Committee has provided that administrators may regain tools (or confidence) through confirmation RFA, such a close would be illogical and process wonkery at its worst. No administrator is obligated to submit themselves to a recall RFA or the conditions of that page. However, they are perfectly entitled to do so without other users (let alone fellow administrators) interfering and snatching user rights on dubious grounds. Confirmation RFA (in fact) may be a voluntary agreement that becomes the outcome of an RfC/U. However, it is not a requirement that an administrator must first go to an RfC/U prior to self-nominating themselves for reconfirmation. As for the suggestion that editors can open RfC/Us on themselves; that the rules have been ignored on a few occasions does not mean that it is so flagrantly encouraged. Finally, RfC/U is not the only way to deal with grievances about administrators, or the only way to figure out whether an administrator may be desysopped, should an administrator agree to other methods as stated in administrator policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think having an RFA for an already-admin is just absurd. It's making a request for something you already have. If that's the way he wants to handle his/her recall, he/she needs to resign the tools first, then ask for them back via RFA. Not mere process wonkery, rather, it shows that the process will actually work because the administrator has to then go through. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume an admin who does so is highly hopeful/confident that a community consensus supports that admin keeping their tools. For example, one could read his/her logic as saying "why should I remove tools, go through RFA and then regain them? Instead, I'll RFA and reconfirm prior consensus (without all the removing/readding drama which might prove unnecessary anyway). That would also take care of the doubts." This line of thinking isn't unreasonable, I'd imagine, but it clearly isn't flawless either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjo. If you don't agree with a process then it is fully appropriate for you to raise questions about the process, and start a discussion on alternative methods. It is, however, inappropriate to stop a consensual process mid-flow, as that is disruptive - it may force other people to revert your actions, may destabilise the process, and can create unneeded drama. I admire boldness, and I recognise there is sometimes a fine line between boldness and disruption, so I don't wish you to feel that I am wagging a finger at you, just giving my view that I feel that in this instance boldness was overstepped into disruption. SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The close was reverted without Nihonjoe's input? This is totally inappropriate. You admins are such drama hounds. I call for Ncmvocalist's resignation for such actions.--Milowent (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Resignation of what, exactly? Aiken ♫ 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, exactly. He's not even an admin (I just figured out). I guess he must be banned for 100 years then as penance. It won't be long before another editor reverts the unclose no doubt.--Milowent (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Policy does not permit them to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, policy does permit me to do so. There is no policy anywhere which supports WP:RECALL. Your actions were completely inappropriate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that yours were particularly helpful either. Letting the RfA run to completion, then ruling on the outcome (was consensus to remain an admin present or not) and letting H go to meta and request bit removal if required seems like a far less dramatic course of events than what we have here now. ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, you are bound by administrator policy, if you cared to read what I said above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You realize that that section is not policy as there has never been consensus to have it become policy (or even a guideline). In fact, there is significant opposition to it becoming a policy or guideline. That section ought to be reworded to indicate that, while it's mentioned on a policy page due to relevance, it is not a policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You really are not listening: nothing justified the poor judgement you made in this matter, be it during or after the event. There was no consensus that supported demoting the recall section of long-standing written admin policy or changing the meaning of dispute resolution policy/procedure. You didn't even try to find a consensus. Instead, you were desperate to close a legitimate recall process that you weren't happy with and tried to inappropriately further your personal position. This can be seen from your bullying (including the inappropriate close you attempted), and the edit-warring [7] [8] to push your personal (and extreme) views that would rob users of their rights (which at the time, were being exercised in good faith). As an admin (let alone a bureaucrat) of this site, your conduct is best described as grossly inappropriate and your rationales were fundamentally incorrect - if you still don't understand why, then this marks the beginning of a big problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're getting rather bent out of shape on this, Ncmvocalist. No one's rights are being taken (a phrase that should be reserved for dealing with governments and actual real-life oppressors, anyway. Wikipedia is just a website.) I think Lar's comments come closest to making your argument successfully; by including frivolous cries like "grossly inappropriate" over a single closure that was reverted and an additional editing skirmish, you've drowned your case in melodrama and discredited it. I think this RFA should indeed be allowed to continue for the sake of keeping the drama down, but these absurd cries of abuse are needless. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you just have a vivid imagination or you're deliberately misstating my position on all fronts - if it's the latter, please refrain from doing so. I am not out of shape, thank you very much, and I have not made "absurd cries of abuse". Clearly you think certain recall RFAs are "absurd" and now you're trying to sweep this under the rug, pretending that nothing was wrong here. Sadly, that is not enough to make it OK; requiring a community member to fix a bureaucrat's poor judgement should certainly not become commonplace, regardless of what terms they are - entitlements or drama. My comments indicate (what I think is) a reasonable expectation that this should not ever have to happen again - when a bureaucrat doesn't like the way something is done, or doesn't like the way policy is being applied, or wants to dispute policy, Nihonjoe's handling of this is an example of how NOT to do it. That Nihonjoe seems to be indicating that he would not change anything in his approach if encountered with this situation in the future is what has marked the beginning of a big problem; nothing more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't take a whole lot of imagination when it's right in front of you in textual format. Don't believe me? Compare your language with everyone else in this thread. Others who (at least in part) agree with you have used words like "unhelpful", "crosses into disruption" and such. They have disagreed with Nihonjoe in a highly fair manner. The words you have used here are disproportionate to the situation. This is a policy dispute. Those happen all the time. Certainly, some things have been handled in ways they shouldn't have been. None of this justifies your words, though. That's why I characterized them as "absurd cries of abuse", and I stand by that characterization. If you don't agree, well, sorry, I don't plan to stop asserting what I believe to be the case. Since we're clearly not going to come to a meeting of the minds here, and since I'm setting off Orange Bars of Death for Nihonjoe, I think I'll withdraw from this discussion. Farewell. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's not "a whole lot of imagination", then it's an extremely flawed analysis that doesn't properly appreciate a fact; each person is different - some people are more passive/diplomatic, some people are more active/blunt, and some people are a combination of both. You are unduly limiting much of your sight to this single user talk thread, when in reality, comments of varying degrees were or are being made in multiple locations - some of which I have still not participated in. Of the few people who agreed with your position, they did not go around repeatedly calling others opinions (of the handling of this) as "absurd cries of abuse", even for opinions that used rhetoric in excess of anything I've said to date. I don't think your comments have helped in this case (as they seem to inflame this further), so I think your decision to withdraw from this was wise. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You do realize the section of that page you're linking to expressly says it is "completely voluntary", right? I can't see how that section contains anything that binds anyone at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Essentially agree with this comment, by Lar (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I have put this page on pending change protection per request at the pending change queue. However, it seems that this article have a bad history of edit war, and since you know the history of this article better than me, be sure to keep an eye in case if another edit war breaks out, and you are more than welcome to override the PCP by putting it back to semi or full if needed, thanks. 山本一郎 (会話) 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine so far. I have it watched, and nothing major at all has changed. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

L'Arc-en-Ciel page move discussion

I see that you closed the discussion, but I'd like to know your rationale for denying the request when the only opponent provided no new or verifiable information. Under the Wikipedia section on consensus, it states that even if a topic has been discussed, it can be discussed again. I won't quote it back to you, but the first paragraph under 'consensus can change' in the Wikipedia:Consensus article gave me reason to believe that my suggested move would be evaluated without bias to the previous argument. I believe in this case that it was worth discussing again because a great deal of pertinent information was not considered in the earlier argument. User Alissakuduk brought forward a published verifiable source in support of using tildes in the band name, and there was no verifiable source given for using dashes. Furthermore, the article for the band Blue Öyster Cult preserves their purposeful aesthetic misuse of the diacritical mark 'umlaut', and since L'Arc~en~Ciel is also a proper name, this seems sufficient precident to allow creative use of a diacritical mark in their name as well. I wanted to provide and present information that was overlooked, and I also wanted to ensure that the article was correct. If you read all the evidence provided and deemed it insufficient -- even though the opponent had no evidence to back his/her counter-claim -- then I will respect that. A reason for the closing of the topic would be appreciated, thank you. Ruby took (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed recently. Because of that, there is no point in bringing up the issue again so soon. If you want to bring it up again in a year, feel free, but give it a rest for a while. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Martinière source

Your WP:BLP violations have been removed, please stop citing WP:PRIMARY sources within articles, especially those which rely upon a resume which can be easily fabricated. If you have a reliable third party source which corroborates the claim then by all means please do restore it. Upholding policy is not vandalism so any attempt to misconstrue it as such will not be tolerated. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't say anywhere in it that primary sources may never be used in an article about a living person. If you believe it does, you are interpreting it incorrectly. I have posted the reasoning why over at Talk:Stephan Martinière#Primary sources. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard that primary sources are not allowed, just that we are encouraged to find independent ones instead. Doesn't mean we can't use primary sources if we can't find the information in an independent one. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is happening over at Talk:Stephan Martinière#Primary sources, not here. Please post over there. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 13:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators

The protection seems out-of-the-blue, there is no edit-warring in the past 24 hours as far as I can tell (just BRD)? –xeno^talk 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's slow edit warring, with Nmcvocalist on one side and (seemingly) everyone else on the other. This needs to stop and people need to discuss this rather than edit warring. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. –xeno^talk 14:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is one dispute - that is the one where neither you nor Spartaz made any attempt to seek consensus for your bold changes. There is another with FT2's bold attempt to copyedit the 3 processes down to a single line and my reversion (as FT2's changes caused necessary details to be omitted, and also contradicted what is written in RfC/U or ArbCom process). You've connected these as a basis for using tools here (even though you are clearly involved) - in reality, it's not warranted as FT2 has not given any indication there is a dispute, and there is certainly no connection between them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think we've gotten to the point protection is needed, personally. I think the BRD cycle should be allowed to do its work in this case and those who aren't discussing properly (which doesn't seem to be too many, as the talk page is pretty active now) should be reminded to do so and blocked if they keep on edit warring without discussion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If FT2 thinks there is a dispute here, clearly we have some discussing to do; FT2 is ready to discuss his bold edits and question any reversions appropriately - that is, I've known him to be quite capable of taking care of himself because he's ready to discuss and resolve any issues in the wiki way. But that dispute is not connected with Nihonjoe's dispute - as Nihonjoe has connected those disputes together to justify using his tools, he is conceding that he used his tools in a dispute in which he is involved. That's the first issue. The second issue revolves around the likelihood that there was no dispute between me or FT2 in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, FT2 often does make sweeping rewrites of policy/guideline pages and he tends not to mind if someone then goes ahead and tweaks his changes, at which point he may tweak further, etc. - this is collaborative editing, not edit-warring - so I think the protection should probably be lifted unless an actual edit-war occurs. –xeno^talk 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All correct. I wasn't aware of the revert (and if reverted the route to follow would be discussion unless the changes were very well grounded in which case perhaps a selective reinstatement with explanation), and I would not classify a simple rewrite of a section followed by a revert and copyediting as an "edit war". This may have been a good-faith over-reaction or concern - may I suggest unprotect it and watch it all sort itself out via normal collaborative processes. Thanks. (And thanks Ncm for pointing me to this and Xeno for accurately calming the concern). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with you specifically. Ncmvocalist was the one refusing to let anyone remove the non-policy section and change anything without discussing things with him personally. He is showing serious ownership issues with that page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the evidence that your overreactions have not been made in good faith is becoming clear. Please drop the stick and back away from the carcass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of bad faith. You're the one who is trying to ram this non-policy through as policy without any sort of discussion. I'm just being vocal about my disagreement with that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been part of written policy since 2008 and was derived from the right for parties to come to agreements as to how they move a dispute forward. Administrators are perfectly entitled to select this method without fear of being intimidated by you and your constant attempts to impose your personal views on the community through incorrect/inappropriate closes/moves. Nothing has changed, except that you are trying to ram it out of written policy on the basis of totally different community desysop proposals that failed to gain traction. As for your undiscussed status-change of long-standing policy, and blatant misuse of administrator tools to try and further this cause (which makes this no longer a mere disagreement), you are totally mistaken if you think that these facts will be swept under the rug - the constant pretences and evasion of legitimate concerns will not work; avoiding scrutiny of your own ongoing conduct in this matter is unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure where you're getting this "constant" from as it has only been in the last few days (about seven, now) that I became aware of this attempt to pass off WP:RECALL as policy. Yes, admins may select to use it if they wish, but it is not policy and the outcome is not enforceable in the least. As I stated before, just because it is mentioned on WP:ADMIN doesn't mean that it is policy. That is the only point I've been trying to make: WP:RECALL has never been policy. Ever. It's been soundly defeated multiple times. I'm fine if it's linked from WP:ADMIN as long as people are made aware that it's not policy.

Nothing is being swept under a rug, there are no pretences being made, there is no evasion happening, and I don't see how you could think any of those were happening. I've been very straightforward with everything, and I haven't tried to do anything underhanded or in the shadows. You may scrutinize all you want, but there's really nothing there to scrutinize. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is policy; for something to be part of policy, be it through dispute resolution (which has been restated in administrator policy since 2008), the outcome does not need to be enforceable - that is what you constantly ignore. That is, what is enforceable is the method by which an administrator (after hearing from the parties) legitimately agrees to try to come to an outcome that is agreeable to them. Not one of the parties was remotely pleased by your action; being a bureaucrat does not mean that you try to deprecate WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY at all costs - that's not going to fly, and that is why this recall RFA continued despite your attempt and campaigning to close it down or move it on dubious grounds. In this case, parties wanted RFA-type input (where RFA regulars also added their input) - similarly, where a party wants to limit themselves to RfC/U input, they are entitled to that also, which is why Kirill's RfC was not deleted despite failing to comply with minimum requirements, and it is also why it was archived per usual RfC/U conventions. Both of these tried methods are reasonable and have been used in good faith; that's all there is to it. The community desysop processes is a different matter altogether - those outcomes would be enforceable, but aren't (and are not supported by policy) due to the lack of consensus on the issue, and admin policy specificially notes that. On the other issue, when an administrator inappropriately relies on WP:IAR and misuses their tools, and makes no acknowledgement or suggestion that this will not happen again, there is plenty to scrutinise because they have (and are) not engaging in proper conduct. Even that response you made evades that issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you aren't bothering to even pay attention to what I write, I'm not going to bother trying to engage you here any longer. It's proven rather pointless. Please don't bother responding here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done

Just a personal note of thanks for your handling of the recent reconfirmation matter. I have commented at length at WP:BN. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)