User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

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

Peter Bethune hooding

Cptnono (talk) is apparently counting you as a supporter of removing the line in the Ady Gil article that mentions Peter Bethune's head being covered by a hood during his arrest. The line is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ady_Gil#Peter_Bethune.27s_detention_and_arrest

The discussion is going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ady_Gil#Peter_Bethune.27s_detention_and_arrest_-_massive_deletion_of_referenced_material

Please check out the current edit (assuming it hasn't been reverted again, you may have to check the history) and review the discussion (he thinks it's not relevant, I say it's relevant because it's mentioned in the news article that's referenced and shown in the videos that are referenced, so the editors and producers seemed to have thought it was relevant). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please give it. And if you don't mind, confirm that you don't have any WP:Conflict of interest. Thanks. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of COI you think I have. Please assume good faith. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is bordering on an edit war, and some of the editors seem very keen on covering this up and on removing well-referenced and apparently relevant material. I made my disclosure on the issue of WP:COI and I asked the others commenting to do like-wise. If any of us are Sea Shepherd members or members of the Japanese Fishing Ministry, etc., it would not be appropriate for us to be edit warring over this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is my disclosure from the discussion page of the article: The inclusion of this information seems pretty straight-forward to me. So I have to ask at this point, and I'm assuming good faith, but this intense desire to remove simple observations that have been reported in the news media about an event that seems to be worthy of inclusion just leads me to ask this. Do any of the editors involved in this dispute have a WP:Conflict of interest? I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Sea Shepherd Society. I am not a Greenpeace member, but I may have donated money to them 25 or 30 years ago when I was a college student, one of many, many groups who solicited me for donations and to whom I made donations. I do not belong to any anti-whaling groups. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no COIs in this little bit. I stumbled across the discussion, made my comments, and that's the extent of my involvement. As for the whole hood thing, him wearing a hood is irrelevant as he wasn't hooded. Insisting on keeping that in there is biased and certainly not neutral. Windbreakers with hoods are very common among people who are on boats. They even sometimes use the hoods, too! Does that mean they were hooded? Of course not. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you watched the video? It doesn't look like he's casually wearing a windbreaker hood. He looks like he's in handcuffs and his head has been covered by the police. I doubt he would do that to himself. He doesn't consider himself a criminal and has no reason to hide his face. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In Japan, they tend to cover a person's face regardless because they don't want the person being abused by the media. And the hood was his windbreaker hood, as can be seen clearly in more than shot. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Free Belarus

Hello! You apparently blocked me indefinitely, it's funny when an admin does such actions witout any clue in what's going on. the thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko is ethnicaly Belarusian, yet for a reason some user deletes the references to that and the categories coming along. Another user doesn't know the difference between nationality and ethnicity and tries to write Tadeusz Kościuszko as an ethnic Pole (like Poles), which he isn't (he's a Pole by nationality). Before baning people, learn the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.170.41 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Go back and read the block notice. You were blocked only for your username. Not for any other reason. If you follow the directions on your user page, you will be able to choose a new username and be unblocked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

? What's the problem with my username? 79.177.170.41 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a politically-charged username being used to edit politically-charged articles, and is hence very disruptive. Please follow the directions to select a different username. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) There's something funky going on with this user or with the user's name change. I'd laid it out on the talk page of the admin who unblocked to allow the change [1]. Would you mind taking a look, I can't quite get a handle on it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted and responded. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Now socking from a differnt Tel Aviv, Israel-IP (132.66.181.112 (talk · contribs)) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Swatted. All of them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. totally. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:タチコマ robot

I have created a doppleganger account, User:Tachikoma robot, which redirects to this account. I have sent you the login info via email. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- Cat ^chi? 12:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say a quick word of thanks for your remarks about my recent block. I know we've sometimes had disagreements in the past, so your words meant a lot :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the remarks were all true. I think part of the reason you were caught in the trap is because you have a tendency to be very passionate about things. This can be good in many ways, but can work against you in many others. Regardless, I think you are overwhelmingly a positive influence on WP:ANIME. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I do let my passion get the best of me :-) Alas, as soon as his block lifted, the guy is right back at it. I left a note with Jéské Couriano, but he isn't online yet.[2] I ended up filing an ANI, as he is also doing this now to Jack Merridew, and is now randomly reverting other edits on other pages.[3] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment there. I do think that you really, really need to work on restraining yourself when reverting what you see as vandalism. Your block log is becoming quite large, and all but one were blocks for "edit warring". I suggest reporting the issue and letting other become involved rather than reverting yourself. Request help from a WikiProject to stop the bad edits. Anything which will help you keep yourself from being blocked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, though a lot of those blocks were later reversed, in the end it is still there. Usually when it is someone trolling or vandalizing, I do request help, but it often takes hours to get a response, and so far it seems like anytime I do ask for help these days I end up blocked myself. :-( I do have a low tolerance for disruptiveness that is lower than, unfortunately, Wikipedia itself accepts. I am working on having more patience and AGFing, but sometimes its hard. Like this editor who popped in and removed a bit of content from an FA article, and who appears to be here purely to be disruptive. If he hadn't come first, I'd think it was another sock of Karunyan...so far he made that one edit to the FA article, then when I reverted it, he reverted me calling it vandalism. We have had some back and forth on his talk page, and my sock alarms are going off, but I can't pinpoint who he might be, though leaning towards ItsLassieTime or, if Karunyan really is Kagome1977 then the same. Week's later, he returns to edit Promised Land, an article I'd cleaned up a some hours before. He fixed a typo but put in his edit summary "reverted possible vandalism by Collectonian" [4]. Then today, he removed a validly sourced statement from Touched by an Angel[5], and continues arguing with me on his talk page that it isn't sourced. If it weren't for his previous edits, I'd have just presumed he didn't understand about having sources at the end of a series of statements from the same source, but at this point I don't think that's really the issue. On our latest exchange on his talk page, he stated "The sentence was not sourced. You removed other unsourced content from the article, and I have the right to exercise the same kind of judgement. If you continue to follow my edits and revert them without justifiable cause, you will be reported for blocking as well."[6] How are you supposed to respond to this kind of stuff? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that, and I've experienced similar things many times here. The first thing to do is stop reverting each other, even if you have to allow the incorrect version of the article to sit there for a day or so while you discuss things on the article talk page. I know this can be difficult to do, but, in the interest of avoiding edit wars, it's a good thing to do. If someone immediately reverts something I do, I try to immediately post a question about it on the talk page, and try to engage them in discussion about it. If that doesn't work, I move on to their user talk page to try and get them to engage in discussion. Often, if you do this, you can determine exactly what the issue is and address it without getting both sides in the dispute up in arms about the issue. This is something I've tried to do over the last couple years, and I've found it works for me almost every time.

As for the sock issue, with the limited number of edits he's made, I don't know that any conclusions can be drawn. You may try comparing writing style between the various editors and see if there are any similarities. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you do, though, in a case like this where he pretty much stops a revert after maybe once, then goes away and comes back to do something else? I am "discussing" on his talk page, but it really isn't going anywhere at all, and I'm probably not doing well holding my temper in check :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't get anywhere in discussion, open it up to a larger audience. Associated WikiProject talk pages, mediation, etc. I had to do that with one page where a guy freaked out every time I tried to archive the talk page discussions because they were old (3 months old and 7 months old, respectively). We finally brought in a mediator who helped the other guy see reason, and I set up auto-archiving for the page after a year. Some people just refuse to be reasoned with, and eventually they will push things to the point were enough people are upset at their inability to play nicely that they'll get their editing privileges removed. It's happened in some fairly high-profile cases, and I don't think it will be limited to the past. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood High School mural

Hi! I understand that the reason why that was deleted was because it was copyrighted and there was no fair use rationale to support the image. I'll see if I can find sources specifically about the mural; if so I can write a detailed section about it and restore the image with a good FU rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I started Hollywood_High_School#Mural and I am bulking it up. What do you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored and in the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo meetup

Hi, do you've any interest to plan a Wikipedian meetup in Tokyo around April 2010? --Saki ^talk 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't live anywhere near Tokyo right now, unfortunately. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Valentine Kiss

On March 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valentine Kiss, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sayuri Kokushō

On March 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sayuri Kokushō, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|WP:BN|WP:USURP}} Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 11:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

hi

You there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.63.56 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but since I have no idea who you are, it makes no difference. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

anime voices bot

Hey- the bot was approved, I haven't run it yet. I can do so now, but I'd prefer to do it when you can keep an eye on the edits. When's a good time? tedder (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and run it now. I'll be around. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Did a test run of two, now doing a run of 200. I'll wait after the 200 for at least an hour or two in case anything is crazy. tedder (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The test run of two seems to be the same article (Otaku no Video). Is that what was supposed to happen? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I turned off the log, the best way to see them is the contribs: Special:Contributions/TedderBot. The first two articles: [7], [8] tedder (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I looked through a fair sampling of the diffs and everything looks good so far. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Running a big batch of them now. tedder (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it's all done now, nothing to report. tedder (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for helping out! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipe-tan Sorceress

I can easily mirror the .svg, but the character on the puzzle piece on her hat will be wrong and the image looks a little strange when flipped. If you don't care about that, I can upload a mirrored version. Erimaxbau (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there is that. Hmm...perhaps not, then, unless you want to tweak the character so it's not mirrored when the rest of the image is mirrored. That might take a bit of work, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but I think the correct character would be the one from the other side, 'Ω. Erimaxbau (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

True. If you want to modify the image to adjust for that, it would be awesome. No pressure, though. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: OTRS

{{Tb|Neutralhomer|OTRS}}

Please also see the "History" subsection on my talk page as well for more information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi there Nihonjoe. Do you have any idea who maintains Twinkle these days? It's just that I blacklisted someone here, but they've managed to use Twinkle still: [9][10]. Any ideas? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've given him the access back anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it's not AzaToth. Looking at the entry, it should have worked. Maybe it takes a short time for the server to notice the changes? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's usually the client-side browser cache that can, depending on the browser and its settings, delay the blacklisting to come into effect for quite a while, theoretically for up to 30 days, but usually just for one browser session. There can be ways to speed it up, but it's usually not worth the bother if you justify revocation of Twinkle access by poor or incorrect edit summary use or incorrect warnings or whatever and, if that behavior continues and is problematic enough, just block the user. But yeah, in particular if the user is online and active while you blacklist him, it almost certainly will take time to come into effect. Amalthea 19:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User name change

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I would like to award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, for taking the time to do such as a small & kind thing such as changing my username. Thanks! :) ♕ImperialJaneite♥talk ★contibutions 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Backgorund on RFDs - Thanks

I can see that the basis I used for nominating the articles for deletion (not notable) was not in keeping with the practices of Wikipedia. It was not my intention however to be a disruption. There are major issues with these articles. In fact I saw in the AFD comments that it was suggested more than once that these were attack articles and I completely agree. I would say that it goes farther they are also violating WP: Coatrack. It should be noted that these articles were created by the same person (Cirt) within a couple of days of each other. Cirt has had a long standing POV crusade regarding groups and organizations he considered to be “cults” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirt/Contributions). His crusade led him to be banned 7 times under a previous user account.

All of that being said, I really do appreciate your message.

Spacefarer (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand...

...I understand why you deleted the image earlier today, and why my name change was not accepted.

Oh, well. I guess I'm stuck being LDEJRuff in this encyclopedia then.
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 16:12, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

You're welcome to choose another username, just not that one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another mural

File:REal GOod -mural2.jpg - Wouldn't this likely be a non-free mural too? If so, then I need to find the info on it to see if I can write a section about it for Rego Park, New York - because the guy who uploaded it tagged the image with a free license. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That one might not be copyrightable as it's only letters and simple geometric shapes. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#When_should_.27Request_an_account.27_be_used.3F}}

Thanks

... for dealing with that outing incident so quickly! Rhomb (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

{{oldafdfull}} merge discussion

As a participant in the deletion discussion for the {{oldafdfull}} template, you are invited to comment on the followup merge request here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Were the attacks on my character and motives here necessary? The reason the TfD failed was that the old template had some technical faults, not that The Will Of The People was that we needed two templates. I don't appreciate going to the trouble of fixing that, going through all the procedural crap demanded of me as well, and then being attacked for it anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I made no attacks on your character, just comments on your actions. You shouldn't have needed to have been convinced to notify those who participated in the discussion, especially as it ended less than one month ago. If you can't be bothered to be courteous to other editors, but instead have to be badgered into doing so, then perhaps a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is not the best place to be participating. As you addressed the concerns raised in the discussion, I don't see why you were fighting letting others know about the discussion. We're all reasonable people, so if the concerns raised were addressed, why were you fighting against letting us know that you were going ahead with things regardless? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to any furtherance of the pretence that collaborative editing requires going around getting blessings for one's actions off of people. There's nothing special about your having left a "per above" comment on that TfD which makes your being notified of prime importance to future work on it. Indeed, that it resulted in my being first called "disingenuous" and then casually asked to reconsider my dedication to the encyclopedia only confirms to me that asking the peanut gallery is not a productive use of my time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is common courtesy. I (and others) participated in the discussion, and you're still refusing to see that your near-refusal to notify us when you were going ahead with actions which went against the closing of the TfD might be a cause for concern. It's just frustrating that you are reacting in such a negative way to constructive criticism. If you can't handle constructive criticism (meaning it's meant to point out a possible avenue of improvement), then perhaps you need to step back and try to see things from a different point of view. We're all here to work together to improve the encyclopedia, and that necessitates working together. Making an end-run around a discussion is not doing that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly see that pinging everyone in the first place would have led to less drama. However, it's simply the case that if I went around chasing people up for their opinions on things before I did them all the time then I'd get far less work done. We've got process because it leads to a better end product, not because it's important in itself. I certainly jump the gun with my editprotected requests from time to time, but what usually happens is that in the space of five minutes any problems are resolved and the issue is closed. That to me is a better example of productive collaborative editing than having to form tiny committees every time something needs done to a template. Anyway, sorry for being narky, happens when I run out of milk. Issue now resolved (both milk and template). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, opinions differ on that: WP:Process is important. Amalthea 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that process is important, but that common courtesy is important. It helps everything run more smoothly if you take into consideration the opinions of other involved editors. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my consideration was that the merge was opposed because there were technical problems with it. Indeed, the assumption that the opposes were predicated on this being fixed has been borne out on the current discussion. If I'd thought otherwise then I would certainly hope that I'd have pinged people for comment, and indeed I think my record shows that I've done just that in the past. I can't promise that I won't skip that step again in future if indeed I consider a change to be non-controversial given any previous discussion, though I'll certainly think twice before actively declining a request to do so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Alexking321 and User:WikiRecontributer47

Hi,

I noticed that at 17:49 on 30 March 2010 Alexking321 made a change username request here this which, there being no obvious reason not to, you did for him/her at 19:23 on 30 March 2010 see this edit.

However Alexking321 was recreated at 19:24 on 30 March 2010 see here and has made edits to articles that the original Alexking321 now WikiRecontributer47 had edited.

Just thought that this looks somewhat unusual given the reason for the user name change and given that the original Alexking321 was blocked for disruptive editing, it gives the impression that he or she may be trying to start over. Codf1977 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

you may also want to look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WikiRecontributer47 Codf1977 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looked and replied. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't miss understand me - I am not for one second suggesting that you have done anything wrong - just thought as the admin that did the change you should know. I am sorry for any misunderstanding Codf1977 (talk)

No problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

SpArC

Need my user id 'SpArC123' changed to 'SpArC'. Here's the message on my commons page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SpArC as you'd requested on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username --SpArC (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to make your post over on WP:CHU (as requested over a week ago), not here. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving at Nicole Oresme

Hi,

You recently changed the archiving parameters so as to remove all past discussion from the Nicole Oresme talk page. Please do not make such substantial changes to hide past discussions without prior discussion on the talk page. I am restoring the archiving parameters to their prior state to leave a minimum number of discussions on the talk page. I'll leave the other damage you've done unchanged.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "damage" anything, so please get off your high horse. The changes were made per OTRS 2010020310046486 (which I didn't note as I didn't think it was necessary in this case). There's no reason to leave ten threads on the page when the discussions are old. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "damage" was overstated, but the change was made without any discussion and the OTRS cited doesn't seem relevant to the issue of stripping all past discussions from a talk page. Could you clarify it's relevance please. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no "maybe". That kind of change doesn't need discussion as anyone who wishes to view the old discussions can do so in the archives. Archiving the discussions was very clearly mentioned in the OTRS ticket, so unless you are blind you're blatantly lying. Do you even have OTRS access? Of course, you're the main person this ticket is talking about, so you may just be trying to avoid scrutiny. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I clicked on the link you provided and got this text on an OTRS login page:

February 1, 2009: A large number of tickets older than 30 days were accidentally deleted from the database. Recovery from backups will be attempted on the live DB.

January 30, 2009: OTRS has been upgraded to version 2.4. We have also moved it to a new dedicated server, and changed the URL to https://ticket.wikimedia.org.

January 29, 2009: OTRS 2.4 test server set up

Apparently I've missed something that's been discussed on a page that's not widely accessible. Could you please explain what I'm missing.

Finally, it is courteous to discuss changes you intend to make before you make them. Accusing people of lying falls outside common courtesy. Please AGF. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are an OTRS agent, you will not be able to view the ticket (see WP:OTRS for more details on what OTRS is). And it is not common practice to discuss every change before making it. That would bog the entire site down in unnecessary bureaucracy if every edit had to be discussed before being made. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Cinema Database url changes

Hi Nihonjoe. The Agency for Cultural Affairs's Japanese Cinema Database has recently changed its urls, dead-linking dozens of sources in our Japanese film articles. What used to be, for example, "http://www.japanese-cinema-db.jp/searchDetails.php?id=11402" is now "http://www.japanese-cinema-db.jp/details/11402" Do you know of anyone with a bot who would be willing to run it to fix the dozens of such links? Apologies, as I know this is not the proper place to make such a request, but I haven't had many good interactions with bot people in the past and thought you might know one who would be willing to do this task (rather than, say, deleting every one of the refs as "spam" ;-) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would ask at WP:BOTREQ. That looks to be a fairly simple change, so it shouldn't be a problem. It's changing "searchDetails.php?id=11402" to "details/11402". Pretty straightforward. I recommend checking to make sure it reaqlly is that simple before making the request. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I checked three or four pages and they were all "http://www.japanese-cinema-db.jp/searchDetails.php?id=" to "http://www.japanese-cinema-db.jp/details/" so I think it's a pretty safe request. Dekkappai (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Shurin

Greeting,

I want to say, I agree with your decision of not changing the account name. Presumably, it wouldn't have happened that I didn't tell the story of this account. This openness is necessary for progress of both civilization and Wikipedia. Since this account was not mine, I thought to should say it. The person before me, as much as had a desire for improvement, she had no knowledge of the ability to do so, after uncomfortable conversations and misunderstandings, and not enough time to be here, becoming more than frustration to be here, the account was more times 'deleted'. Couldn't to see her more in this state, after telling me about the desire, I proposed my help. We daily talk about each step, so she decided to change the account name to something new, as a account new beginning. Three days ago, at night after work I decided to declare for the name change. What I didn't look about is how would express it, and dropped a reasonable suspicion. I would like in her name, to forgive my error and change the account name. Best regards--GreyWolfy (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I need some help

Hi, Nihonjoe. It's been a while since we've talked, but I need your help. Another user/editor has just threatened to kick my shins (his words). It's at Talk:Sexual Orientation item #12 "Inserted changes in biological determination of orientation". His exact phrase was "If you wade in with the editors, you probably are going to get your shins kicked." Can you weigh in? Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're taking his comments too literally. It was a metaphor meaning that if you jump into editing in a controversial article, you should expect there to be opinions differing from yours. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's a metaphor -- no one can literally kick me through my computer screen. But it is a threat nonetheless, one that exerts some heavy chilling effects on the discussion. I've done enough editing -- as I think you know -- not to need any introduction to how nasty some editors can be. Do you really and truly mean that if I reply by saying "You try that and I'll smash your head in -- ha,ha -- only a METAPHOR" that someone won't come down on me for being disruptive and uncivil? You bet they will, and you know it. No, not a metaphor: it's a threat to make my editing as hard as possible if I continue to disagree with this person. It's a disruptive procedure for neutralizing an opponent. And it does not belong on Wikipedia. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're blowing it out of proportion. I read the whole thing and I didn't see it as an attack. Not even close. If you really believe it was an attack, feel free to take it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not an attack. I am a Buddhist and diametrically morally opposed to harming others in any way. In fact I have extended a hand several times to give Dr. Perper useful advice, which he apparently misunderstood. My metaphor was in regard to past events where others has disagreed with him, and one editor was particular unfriendly, perhaps even attacking (verbally) Dr. Perper. Hence my metaphor describing to him what had happened, not threatening what could happen. My advice, genuine, was that if he, an academic, were to try to be an editor that others would treat him like one, rather than as an expert. We editors get reverted and have people disagree with us literally every day. My advice was since editors are absolutely not allowed to inject their opinions into the article, that he, as en expert in that topic, would be likely to face conflict. How does one who is an expert in his field add substantive material to an article, and maybe even report his own research, and yet only reference secondary sources (as primary research, original research/OR is prohibited for editors), and not express his expert opinion? As we who are editors respond to people who put suggestions all of the time on the talk pages, I suggested that he do just that, and that editors would do their best to implement his ideas. This was a constructive suggestion that would allow his ideas to be reported within the rules of Wikipedia AND avoid for him the criticism that he has received and abhors. Dr. Perper probably understands the current literature in his field very well, but understands the policies of Wikipedia very poorly. A basic understanding of WP:NPOV,wp:OR and wp:rs is necessary to be an effective editor. I have no desire to discourage him from editing within Wikipedia. But if he wants to be an editor in his spare time, that would be best done in articles where he has no vested interest, so there is no WP:COI. I wish him the best in his endeavors, Atom (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

useraccount policy statement on Login page.

Please see: Wikipedia:MediaWiki_messages#Login_end. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#Subcategories

{{Talkback|User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#Subcategories}} See tim's response, there is project banner's transclusions instead of categories. Okip 13:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Nihonjoe, I am administrator at Macedonian Wikipedia. My user name is Wikimk. On EN.Wikipedia it looks that some one has already opened an account using Wikimk as user name (here: [11]), so I cannot use it to edit. Since that person does not have any edits (the account has been open since 10 May 2007) I would like to ask you for an assistance in order for me to able to edit here using my current user name.

I asked for assistance (here [12] and here [13]) and it was told to me that i need to contact bureaucrat for this purpose.

So, could you please help me with this?
Thank you.
Kind regards, Wikimk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.14.234 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to file a USURP request by following the directions here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I submited the request. I hope everything is OK. Thanks. Regards, Wikimk --77.28.28.91 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Peace Scouts

Joe, out of respect for you and the consistently good work you do, I will be as polite as I can. You don't need to "break" anything to me, I am fully aware of MOSDAB, and I am sure you have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically the bit about Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express. I am just as sure that those editors have not read it, or if so, disregard it. That disambig was perfectly fine as it was, compared to hundreds I have come across in shit shape. How do you or those editors justify those other disambigs remaining in that condition, in light of this badgering? This is pure and simple bullying, in fact my page was 3RR tagged just to push that WP:POINT. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember that just because there are other pages which fail to meet the guidelines doesn't mean that this page can flout the guidelines without a really good reason for it. I'm not trying to "justify" anything, and I doubt the other editors are, either (not sure, though, since I've never worked with them before). It's not wikilawyering to try to get all pages to meet the guidelines, and in this case, the version of the page you were promoting didn't even meet the spirit of the guideline. If you think the guideline is wrong and should be changed, you are welcome to propose a change to it. As for you receiving a 3RR warning, I have no control over what other editors do. If you have a concern about the warning, I suggest taking it up with the editor who gave the warning. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei mentorship

Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raaggio

Hi Joe, I was um writing my vote when you closed the RfA. I hit save and saw the pale red page. Admittedly i had the edit open for a while as i was drafting my vote. Don't suppose you want to allow it? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it had been posted within a minute or so, I would, but as it was posted 16 minutes after I closed it, please move it to the talk page instead. Sorry. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll go ahead and move it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Timing... that is what i get for thinking about my vote. I started to edit it about 25 minutes before you closed it. O well. I asked. I had been looking for a response when my ISP suddenly killed all service in my neighbourhood. After 15 minutes i went back to bed. Lesson learnt: no rfa voting when i can't sleep. :P Cheers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The RFA

As a candidate, I am allowed to have a 7-day run at rFA. Per WP:NOTNOW, the information page you cited for closing my rFA, I am allowed to ask you to let me complete my 7 day run. Thank you in advance, as I would like to hear the opinions of even more members of the community. (WP:NOTNOW#What to do if your RfA was closed early). RaaGgio (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not "allowed to have a 7-day" run, that is the maximum length that RfA's may run. When there is no chance that an RfA will pass, and in your case you lack the necessary experience, there is no requirement to keep it open. Additionally, Joe is a 'crat, which makes his verdicts a little more final than a typical 'notnow'/'snowball' closure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As Balloonman indicated, it is not a "right" to have an RfA last for 7 days. If I restart it, I doubt you're going to receive any further useful feedback beyond what people have already given. Due to your lack of experience, there is no possible way you would pass at this time. I suggest taking the comments already given and applying the advice in them toward improving your chances should you decide to run again. At this point, there is no logical reason to reopen it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Before nominating myself, I did my research. Per WP:NOTNOW, "In general, assuming a good faith nomination or self-nomination, if a candidate wishes the RfA to run for the full time then this is acceptable." The page clearly states I can have a 7-day run. RaaGgio (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've requested further opinions from other 'crats. However, I am still unconvinced that reopening the RfA will be useful or productive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a 'crat, but I say let it run if he wants it to. Not like RFA is so swamped anyway. IMO, their persistence in this will actually hurt future chances, though. –xeno^talk

Notnow is not a policy or even guideline, it is an essay.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNOW is not an essay. It is a information page revealing a consensus achieved by the community; very different. The reason I want it to stay open is because I want feedback from a lot of more editors. Everyone says something different; I enjoy the constructive criticism. It is unfair to say that wanting to hear what even more members of the community say hurts my chances when in reality, all I aspire is to learn and become an even better Wikipedian. RaaGgio (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You might consider Wikipedia:Editor review. –xeno^talk 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want constructive criticism, editor review is that-a-way. RFA is not a forum for gaining feedback, it's a process to create new administrators. If bureaucrats think you have no chance of becoming one, there is no use in continuing. Aiken ♫ 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. RfA is NOT editor review... As for it being an "essay" or "information page"---they hold the same weight. Next to none, the only difference is which banner is flying at the top. Essays can and do reflect community consensus or they can be the view of individuals. At most the difference is that an information page might be viewed as a more accepted essay.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think reopening this RFA would be a complete waste of everybody's time. Part of a bureaucrat's job is to determine when RFAs should be closed, and if they think it should close then it should close, simple as. Aiken ♫ 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reopening would not go well. The candidate would better spend his time learning from the comments already received and returning to RFA some months from now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reopening it would be a waste of time; sorry, but it's too unlikely to fail to warrant reopening it. Premature closures are well within the purview of the bureaucrats; candidates are free to ask that we reconsider, as you have done here, but we're under no obligation to reopen RfAs that we feel would be best left closed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Shinto/to do

Template:WikiProject Shinto/to do has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How to get started translating?

I wonder if you could give me some advice. I'd really like to start expanding stubs that are part of wikiproject Japan by translating from Japanese wikipedia, but I'm not sure what the proper procedures are for doing so. I don't want to get stuck in before I really know what I'm doing. I'm particularly worried about causing disharmony by not communicating clearly with other people involved in the project about what I'm doing - for example, how do I know that nobody else is translating a particular article? Should I be concerned if the article I am translating from has few references? Any general advice would be most appreciated Rupa zero (talk)

A Mighty Fortress

Where can I get an electronc copy of this book? Debresser (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a Kindle (or a Kindle app on your iPhone/iPod Touch), you can get one through Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/A-Mighty-Fortress-ebook/dp/B0035FZJ9O/

I don't know of any other way to get a copy electronically. It's possible it's available on the Nook from Barnes & Noble, or as an iBook through Apple. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian

Hi. I just wanted to advise you that the unblock request at Turian's page had already been declined, and he reverted the administrator's declining of it. I was about to leave a message about why this was problematic under Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and WP:PARENT, but edit-conflicted with you. You may still, of course, regard the unblocking as reasonable, but I felt you should be made aware that you have inadvertently been drawn into a "wheel" situation. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, a new administrator must deal with unblock requests. And declining a request based on a misunderstanding is bad as well. –Turian (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the blocking administrator is not permitted to decline an unblock request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the possible conflict of an unblocking administrator declining multiple ones? –Turian (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

His first decline was procedural, so, no, really, I don't. Have you read WP:PARENT? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And his second...? Also, WP:PARENT is not applicable in this situation. The declined unblock request itself says to ask again if you feel the prior was wrong. –Turian (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

His second was the one you reverted. The second decline in total was a different administrator. (You can see the first and second side by side in this diff.) The template also says "Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked again for 48 hours. His behavior is unacceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the brief hijacking of your page. And that you landed in the middle of this. If I were quicker with linking I probably could have prevented this situation. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There was no excuse for his behavior, and I missed it until it was pointed out. It's all good. I'm sure Turian won't be happy with my decision, though. Zannen. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Nihonjoe, do you mind if I try de-escalating this a little, and unblock him if he promises not to argue with the people he's been arguing with lately? I completely understand your rationale for reblocking, but the history of this dispute in the last day or day and a half seems to have been a series of escalations (yes, mostly on his part), and we all might be served by trying to reboot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It's fine by me as long as he tones things down a lot. As it is, he's beyond out of control. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ack, forgot to say thank you. "Thank you". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Message

I just wanted to apologise for my wrongdoings and thanks for sorting things out. I feel I need to leave so I shouldn't be any more trouble here. I am giving this barnstar as a small token of appreciation.

		The Original Barnstar
		For looking the project and helping thing run smoothly. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 0' 45" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Farewell, Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 0' 45" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't think you should quit because of this issue. Most people seem to think it's a good idea, just that it wasn't initially implemented very well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming My Account

Please! I beg you! Let me explain! The reason why I could only use A1DF67 was because my edit history in my Special:Contributions and the history pages of articles had to be attached to my account. If this account is renamed Bowei Huang 2, then my edit history is still attached, it's not dumped. If it is renamed, then I promise that I will never ever edit from User:A1DF67 again. If it is renamed, then I will still only use this account, but it has a different name. I am going to still use this account, but I just simply want it to have a different name. This decision doesn't say that I can't change its name. So can you please just simply let me change its name?

A1DF67 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for this. You are welcome to post on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard and all interested bureaucrats can participate in the discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for move

Hi 穣! I think Seki Kōwa should be moved "Seki Takakazu". The ja article is Seki Takakazu and an asteroid named after him is 7483 Sekitakakazu. The article was once moved, but it seemed to be moved back, and I couldn't move it. Please help me. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've started a move discussion at Talk:Seki Kōwa#Move discussion since the page has been moved back and forth. The discussion will hopefully put an end to it being moved back and forth. Please go offer your opinoion there, along with any supporting evidence. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maths templates

I undid your edits to the math rating templates. The redirection to Template:WikiProject Mathematics is intentional, because it helps educate people that they should not merely place the template on a talk page, but should fill in all the parameters simultaneously. In other words, if someone naively guesses "WikiProject Mathematics" as the name of a template, we want to give them a note that for our project they need to fill in additional assessment information. The mathematics project already has a list of mathematics articles that is unrelated to talk page tags, and so there is no reason to add our assessment banner without actually assessing the article in question. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, all you're really doing is confusing people by using a completely non-standard banner system. You can set it up so you can have a category showing the articles tagged which have not been assessed, so it's easy enough to go and assess them. People are generally used to assessing articles now when placing project templates, so I don't think it's a problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually so easy, since there is no huge pool of editors to do thousands of assessments. "WikiProject tags" are, as the name implies, unique to each wikiproject. The math project already has an automatically-updated list of all math articles, so there is no need to tag articles just to note that they are related to mathematics. If we wanted to tag every article related to mathematics without filling in any assessment information, it would already be done. But instead we allow the templates to be added slowly over time along with the corresponding assessment information. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever. It's still confusing to people outside your exclusive group of math people. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)