User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I Thygard hereby award you this barnsensu for your great work on a wide range of Japan related articles.

Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Socks 3.0

Nihonjoe: The results are up for the other checkuser request: [1]. Thanks for your help. Tortfeasor 00:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

apply

please change opening paragraph into

Liancourt rocks are islets in the Sea of Japan(East Sea). The islets are a claimed area by South Korea, where the islets are known as Dokdo, and Japan,where the islets are known as Takeshima.South Korea classifies the islets as part of Ulleung County, Noth Gyeonsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

from current in protected article Dokto.Agreement was made in opening paragraph(12). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forestfarmer (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, but I don't see where the agreement is. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Norimitsu Onishi

Please update the article as Talk:Norimitsu_Onishi#source_addition_and_update. I added some references that was causing the revert war and I think the updated article is a good restarting point. Thank you.--Jjok 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of Imjin Wars -> Hideyoshi's Invasions

Hi NihonJoe,

I figured I'd leave you a note since I know you're an administrator of many articles in this region of the world and you expressed a bit of interest in the discussion.

I am not 100% certain of how this kind of thing works, but it seems that the discussion has been fairly fruitful. We seem to have come to the conclusion that Imjin Wars is not really used in English. LactoseTI summed up the main opinions as this:

• The following editors believe Imjin War is the most commonly used phrase for English speakers to learn about this event: Appleby, Oyo123. (2)
• The following editors suggest Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea and/or Seven-Year War is more commonly used: LactoseTI, Komdori, LordAmeth, Kusunose, Endroit, Stifle, Good friend100, Shogo Kawada, Ginnre, Visviva, Cla68. (11)

After this summary, people kept discussing, etc., and it seems to have levelled off.

Since it seems the strong consensus of current editors is to move it to Hideyoshi's Invasions, what was suggested is that we might be able to move and unprotect the page and move it to this name since it seems more appropriate. Since this has happened over a short period of time, it might be nice not to have plastered on it that this is "definitely the only name we'll consider" but instead let discussion continues--if it shifts to another name, we can move it then. As there was no advertised poll of the name, it seems this might be the best way to go. The thing is it's nice to get the protection off so the article doesn't look as "half finished."

It should be noted that out of that 11, there are at least 2 users who admit that it's not used in English, but would like to keep it with that name any way (when looking at the naming convention rules, they seem to back off, though).

Everyone seems to have calmed down a lot, and my (and others') hope is that removing protection won't just immediately result in a move war. The thing is, it seems almost impossible that the consensus will shift to keep the article at its current name, and I suppose there will always be 1 or 2 people that refuse to go along with the end result--hopefully they won't just click the "move" button. If this happens, perhaps we could reprotect it and go through more formal procedures.

If there is a different procedure to unprotect the page rather than just asking for it, let me know. Komdori 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are totally wrong. The consensus is botched up and it is definitely not agreed by everyone. Yet, you lie about "how everybody agrees moving the page" when it is not true. It simply seems that the objective is to move the page to your own liking.

"Everyone seems to have calmed down" I am shocked that you would write this down. It definitely is not. Maybe to you, but the debate is still going and there are other matters to deal with as well. Good friend100 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not use my talk page for arguing your case. Please take your discussion to the appropriate talk page. Any further comments on this topic here will be deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Taeguk_Warrior

I'd appreciate some help with Taeguk_Warrior. I noticed he removed the PUI tags from the image pages, so replaced them and warned him (stupid me, I thought maybe he didn't realize not to remove it since he put more copyright information there). Unfortunately, he removed them again as well as my warning not to remove them from his talk page. He's been blocked (numerous times) for this before. Just thought now to report him on the vandalism page, but will leave this here since you were involved in the past/might like to know. (Sorry, should have thought of that first!) LactoseTI 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Richardcavell has things under control for the moment. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he took care of it. I'm sorry, in the future I'll go right to that page. LactoseTI 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to post a notice here if you have a concern. In this case, it looks like another admin was already on the case. No biggie. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IMJIN WAR

I must say I disagree with you totally. Taking the tag off the Imjin War article just made things worse. Also, who says the discussion is stable? There is a heated debate going on about the title and it just got worse. Currently, several editors have claimed using a botched "consensus" they brought up and claim that everybody agrees.

Please read the discussion. It is NOT stable as you see it. I disagree with it and everybody on the other side of the debate will reject is as well. The move was made so rudely too, with the editor saying to "discuss and debate" this, placing a boulder in front of the others.

REVERT back to Imjin Wars. It is currently the used title and the editors shouldn't be able to move without consent of the others. Good friend100 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although this is on a different users' talk page, I figured I'd weigh in since it was about administrative action. Good friend100, please follow the advice several have given you and discuss on the talk page if you feel so strongly. Actually, you may want to take their advice and first propose a new Wikipedia naming policy, since you apparently disagree with it. I believe Nihonjoe did read the talk page rather thoroughly--he made comments/corrections on it. Take your own advice and read it--it's certainly a "stable" situation now, and suitable for continued discussion. LactoseTI 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this with the editors on that page. This is not the place to make your case. Any further comments on this topic here will be deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am simply asking why you removed the tag. Good friend100 16:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I indicated why in the edit summary when I removed the tag. You can disagree with me if you want, but this is not the place to argue your case regarding your opinion of the article. Please go to the Talk:Hideyoshi's Invasions page and discuss your thoughts on the article with the participating editors. I am not involved in editing that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, if a discussion at your talk page is that sensitive then I'll discuss elsewhere.

Actually, by taking the tag off is editing the article because you have caused the discussion to become even more heated and worse. Ironically as Komdori says, it is supposed to be "calmed down". Good friend100 17:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, removing the tag is editing the article, but I'm not involved in the discussions or the editing of the actual article body itself. Therefore, arguing your case regarding your opinion of the article here is not going to get you anywhere. You'll have much better luck if you rationally discuss your ideas with the editors involved in the editing of the article body itself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPJ

Hi. I think I have fixed the problem with the extra code appearing outside the template. It appears to have been caused by the importance-switch table not being closed off properly. [2] However, I have still got to find a way to have the importance field disappear when blank, and I also noticed that the class-category is not being assigned correctly. I will try and work through the code over the next day or so in order to remove these last two bugs. Road Wizard 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I look forward to the other improvements if you can figure out how to do them. Thanks! (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I have now resolved the last two issues and updated the {{WikiProject Japan}} template. I have also added usage notes to the talk page. Let me know if you have any further problems. :) Road Wizard 06:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "Tempo Top Four" in Japanese?

I found this Go term, "Tempo Top Four", on another wiki: http://senseis.xmp.net/?TempoFour

What is its rōmaji? WhisperToMe 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tenpō Yonketsu (天保四傑) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone in #wikipedia-ja said that 'Tenpō Shiketsu' is correct, WhisperToMe. --Ypacaraí 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They're quite possibly right since that's the other pronunciation possible. I'm not familiar with this, so I was just giving my best guess. It's not on the JA Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitoshi Doi

I thought about creating the article myself, but I wasn't certain if it would be "encyclopedic" enough. At least you thought he was noteworthy enough to merit a Wiki-mention; arigatō gozaimasu... Ranma9617 05:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has been a significant player in English-language anime fandom for close to 20 years now, so he's definitely notable enough for an article. I would guess that over 50% of anime fans in the States are at least aware of him. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Anime

Hi, Nihonjoe. Now that the List of Anime article is history, would I be violating any sort of Wiki ethics or protocol by creating a chronologically-ordered article entitled List of 1960s Anime or List of 1960s Japanese animation, or something along the lines of what I mentioned in the deletion discussion? It would take me a while to put the thing together into a presentable form first, but I think it would be useful. The '60s are the only decade that interest me enough to edit and maintain, but other editors would be free to create articles for other decades. Rizzleboffin 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think those would work better as categories, but that's MHO. I think as long as you clearly defined the scope (does it include any show which began or ended in the 60's, or only those which began an ended within the 60's?), it should be fine, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. Right-- I'd define '60s by debut date, and add info after titles that couldn't be presented in a category. The point would be to create a chronology of anime as a supplement to the History of anime article. It'll be a little while before I can work on it, but I'll think more about its structure till then. Rizzleboffin 23:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be more interesting if you wrote a Chronological history of anime (1960s) article that was more than just a list, and then encouraged others to do the same for other decades. Then create Category:1960s anime and other related categories into which the various applicable anime articles could be placed. These could all be sub-articles to the History of anime article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes-- an annotated list with a running commentary... that's something like what I have in mind, though it'll be a lot of work, and have to be done in stages. By the way, did you know that the old list (List of Anime) (at least the August 11 version Google has cached) did not have Kimba the White Lion/Janguru Taitei/Jungle Emperor? Wow. If anything speaks for the list being poorly maintained, that should. Rizzleboffin 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

Point taken; based on your suggestion I just turned off the program that was watching his page for blanking. Can I at least revert removal of tags from the images themselves (rather than his talk page)? I have no problem with him, and I have seen a couple decent edits he has made.

My current (homebrew) vandalism program watches pages I tag as recently vandalized and pops up "repeat vandalism." I suppose this could end up in edit wars like with him in this case (I didn't give it much thought because it generally is effective at stopping things like page blanking). Do you think this script in general is bad/leads to edit wars easily? I'd like to avoid it, though if it's on anything besides a talk page, I would think it a good idea?

Thanks for your help and suggestions —LactoseTI^T 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend extreme caution in using automated programs like that for the very reasons you list. They can be useful in some circumstances, but many times cause problems such as this (there were around 40-50 reverts between the two of you, I believe, on that page). Thanks for turning it off in this case. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging article on responses to war crimes

Hi. I need to get this question answered, as no one else has so far. Once I'm satisfied the merger has happened, then what? Do I have to re-list the page for deletion or what? Second I think the Japanese bit is already discussed in the same depth in the existing Japanese war crimes article. So surely the merger has already been fulfilled. So again, what do I do? Cheers, John Smith's 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Taeguk Warrior Block

I was wondering the best procedure to follow--I thought I'd drop you a note since you were the blocking admin. It seems Taeguk Warrior is clearly avoiding the blocks people put on him, but I'm not sure if it's worth opening an investigation since I think it would be hard to stop, and he seems to restrict himself to minor "vandalism" at most while avoiding the blocks these days.

On Talk:Masutatsu_Oyama, he admits his IP is 71.124.113.216, from a pool of Verizon DSL IP's. On the article Masutatsu_Oyama, during his block there are edits from IP's from this pool, including 72.69.105.138, 71.124.36.224, 71.124.34.4, etc. I didn't notice at first they were all from the same pool, but not only do they have blatantly the same edit patterns, the last of these got blocked several times for the exact same reasons as Taeguk_Warrior. Furthermore, one of them copied warnings with distinctive wording from Taeguk Warrior's page and pasted it on mine (in bad faith). The only time these IP's show up is when the main account is blocked.

I was hoping you could share your thoughts. When blocked, he seems to sometimes calm down a bit, but still pushes his POV/blanks minor bits of content (like, for example, that Masutatsu_Oyama had Japanese permanent residency). I had thought of asking to semi-protect that particular page, but it seems a bit extreme since it's not really being seriously vandalized. For a few days I went in and tried to tweak it to find a compromise, but it seems like he just reverts back to his version in the morning. I don't want to edit war over it; it's just not worth it.

Any suggestions? Should I both opening an investigation? If so it seems a bit of a stroke of luck that he happened to mention his IP at one point. Request semi-protection? It might help, but for just a bit of content blanking? Ignore it? At this point, I'd be willing to give ignoring it a try--with the exception of blanking image tags, I'd just as soon not edit anything on which he's involved--it just is too viscious of an environment. There are plenty of other articles that need work. The only thing I'm concerned about is that he seems to follow me around (to the point that he hotlinked my contributions on his user page). He's been around for a month or two; I was hoping with a few blocks he'd just calm down--I was surprised and pleased at how some rather extreme people became mellow and calm after a single 1 hour block and turned into great editors--but this guy has been blocked for about half the time he's been on Wikipedia, and he just seeems to skirt it using a huge pool of dynamic IP's--obviously there is no way you can block all of Verizon DSL.

Let me know what you think. Sorry for the book! —LactoseTI^T 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to collect evidence. Once you have a pretty convincing case, please feel free to post it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The more evidence you have, the better. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice--I followed it; I wasn't sure of the best place to go. —LactoseTI^T 06:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the Japan article

I've determined there to be 2 things causing revert-wars in the Japan article:

1. People not following Wikipedia:Summary style. To be specific, people are adding stuff to this article with no end in sight, and so we are left with a very huge article. But everyone is so lazy, that they neglect moving the excessive material into their respective "main articles" (as suggested by Wikipedia:Summary style). Then Sir Edgar comes in and reverts the entire article to some really old version, because he feels it is better worded. So we end up going in circles and back and forth, between "making it better worded" and "salvaging the new material". In reality, the root cause is that the new material has not been moved to their respective "main articles". We MUST do this (move out the excessive stuff properly) to make it a better article.
2. Inserting and deleting the word "Korea" in certain passages. (At least people aren't deleting the word "China" anymore, like they used to.) This revert-warring seems to be restricted to the History and Culture sections only. A select few editors are revert-warring regarding this issue, most of them being IP Address users. Please read discussion at Talk:Japan#Notice of semi-protection where I suggested semi-protection, and 3 users (including myself) now support this idea. Please read Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and see if this is even allowed though. If the content dispute is valid, we may just have to follow dispute resolution.

I think "problem #1" should be tackled first, avoiding the History and Culture sections. Just start moving stuff to their respective "main articles." Can we start a concerted effort to do this? --Endroit 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection can be applied in this case as it seems more of a content dispute than vandalism. I agree with the sentiment expressed on that talk page, however, that it may be best ot go through one section at a time and trim out the unnecessary information. Some of the sections are more like complete article rather than summaries. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I've got good news and bad news....

Good news is: We've temporarily stopped the revert-wars in the Japan article, for now. And we've also reduced the number of problems that were causing the revert wars too. Sir Edgar's indicated list of problems has been reduced to only 2 (down from 8). And, we've even reduced the article size to 55kb (down from 74kb). This is due to collaborative efforts by John Smith's, WoodElf, yours truly, Neier, Fg2 and many others.

Bad news is: I'm afraid we will never be able to eliminate the revert-wars stemming from any inclusion of "x came from Korea" in the article, just by simple editing any more. My previous suggestions to use "x came from China via Korea" or "x came from Korea and China" seems to have been ignored by the revert-warriors. That means we need to follow the next step in dispute resolution, which is: a Poll and/or an RfC. Please see: Talk:Japan#3-Part Proposal to avert the content-based revert-wars. And please let me know what the next step should be. Should we do a Poll or an RfC or both?

Another bad news is: Some of the problematic text were dumped into History of Japan (and other articles). We need to look at those eventually later.--Endroit 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if people are unwilling to compromise, an RfC is in order. Then, if people continue to revert after a decision has been made, we can just block them. I'm gladd you've made it this far, but I still find this whole situation absurd. Some of the people participating have been acting like little kids. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I just requested an RfC here. --Endroit 22:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seiyu articles

Since you have already improved the Kikuko Inoue article I guess you are more than approporate to discuss the future of seiyu articles. Many articles such as Aya Hisakawa would benefit from your fine tuning but I think we want to have more out of siyu articles than just lists. I'd like to debate which way to go. --Cat out 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the seiyū articles I translate don't have much narrative to them. I'm more than open to anyone who wants to add that to an article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Impostor alert

It seems that you are starting to get some impostors. Please see Category:Imposters of Nihonjoe to see the ones that have been caught impersonating you. I am letting you know so that if someone vandalizes something and is impersonating you, that you would be prepared to defend yourself from some mistaken charges. Jesse Viviano 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I wonder which person I pissed off this time? I've been involved in some of the Japan-Korea disputes (I protected a pile of articles that were in a revert war). I must have finally "arrived" to have someone want to pretend to be me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

Hi, it's been more than 5 days for the start of the deletion thread, but no one has "processed" it. It's obvious the general opinion is to merge, so can you make an "official" statement on the listing to that effect[3], or get someone to do it? Cheers, John Smith's 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I voted on it, I can't do the closing of it. I'll see if I can get someone to process it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a brief "summary statement" on the page, but it won't count for anything without an admin. John Smith's 20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's's "closing summary" is invalid. An AFD can continue on for longer than 5 days if it hasn't been closed. --RevolverOcelotX 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that and what does it say? All I found was "articles listed here are debated for up to five days". John Smith's 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it states that AFD's can last longer than 5 days if an admin hasn't closed it. There are MANY AFD's that last longer than 5 days. --RevolverOcelotX 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it actually say the discussion can last longer than 5 days? And I mean where does it say "the discussion can continue past five days"? By the way, if you want to continue the discussion use my talk page. John Smith's 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the AFD policy page. AFD can clearly continue on AFTER 5 days, if an admin has not closed it yet. It is up to the closing admin to decide whether to count the votes or not. --RevolverOcelotX 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of any of that, since I participated in the discussion, I can't close it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have just got tired that this ridiculous POV-pushing article was allowed to stay on for so long. Wikipedia just sometimes really ticks me off, because I excelled at history at uni, but have only as much weight as someone that dropped subjects like history as soon as they left school. I wouldn't mind if I thought for a second that some of the other editors had any real academic background, but normally I find it's nothing like that.... John Smith's 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might get a better response if, rather than treating people like they know nothing, you treat them with teh same respect with which you would expect to be treated. Some of your comments come off as implying the other person is beneath contempt and that they obviously don't know anything so they shouldn't even participate. I don't think this is how you are meaning to come accross, but that's how I read a lot of what you post. Take a step back and think about how someone else may respond to what you post, and then change anything that may come off as haughty or less than polite. Just some food for thought. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that the people I have disputes with are completely obstinate. Sometimes I just give up because they refuse any mediation/whatever. Those that are open to a different view don't push the issue nearly as much. I don't mean to give the impression that no one's view is worth anything, but on historical matters I get tired of people expressing views which, in all fairness, aren't worth much. Sorry to cause you trouble, but us historians don't like armchair commentators - it sets us off. John Smith's 22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just don't let yourself be set off. Everyone who wishes to participate in a civil manner is welcome to offer an opinion here on Wikipedia, and there are bound to be opinions with which you disagree. It's very rare to have a discussion on something as nebulous as a historical topic and not have some disagreement on at least part of it. Learn to accept that others won't always disagree with you, and that they hold to their convictions just as much as you do. They may think your views aren't worth much, especially if you wave the "I'm a historian" flag in their faces. From my experience with you so far, it seems to me that you aren't always open to other views, and that you will sometimes beat a point to death just because you think your point of view is correct. While it's fine to have a certain set of standards and opinions, you need to be able to compromise as well, and not just expect others to come around to your POV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't waved the "I'm a historian flag" for quite some time, though personally I could see the advantages in having some areas of wikipedia reserved for experts. Not saying that I would be one though. John Smith's 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a few Japan-related things, was wondering if you could help

I was wondering if there's a kanji-to-romaji converter online somewhere. When doing research one of the most annoying things is to take the kanji name of Japanese people and convert them to English. Also, I'm looking for a large map of Japan showing the borders of all the prefectures (but not necessarily their names). -- Миборовский 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Point me to them and I'll transliterate for you. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I do not have any right now, but I will keep it mind for when I do. No Japan prefectures map, though? :S -- Миборовский 23:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only ones I know of online are in Japanese. There aren't too many detailed ones (with all the villages and towns, etc.) in English. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As for maps of Japan, you can find a lot of them here: Maps of Japan ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I found one that I could use. Thanks. -- Миборовский 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in userspace

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. --Merovingian - Talk 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --Merovingian - Talk 15:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Nihonjoe. Why did you revert an article of Atashin'chi? I apologize if I seem to have done that I am wrong. I'm sorry.--125.28.132.7 04:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the one item which was fine, but the rest were incorrect edits. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. --125.28.132.7 07:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of {{edu-stub}} or {{education-stub}}

Hi - please note that neither of these stubs is appropriate for schools. Instead they should go under {{school-stub}}. Additionally, each continent with the exceptions of Africa and South America have their own stub for schools along the formula of continent-school-stub. :) Aelfthrytha 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cantonbulldog.gif

Greetings. Thanks for trying to clean up improperly-tagged fair-use images, but I think you might have been too hasty. Image:Cantonbulldog.gif was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and had been removed from Canton, Massachusetts temporarily while we decided whether it was fair use or not. (That's why it had an {{imagevio}} tag in the image description page.) In this case, it's no great loss, and deleting it was probably what the community would have decided anyway, but in the future, it would be best to keep note of two things:

• When an image has on {{imagevio}} tag, instead of deleting it, go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems to see if it's been listed for at least 7 days. If it hasn't, then it shouldn't be deleted yet.
• When an image is tagged as "fair use" but isn't used in any articles, tag it with {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} (or {{ofunr}} for short) instead of deleting it.

Again, thanks for your work! I hope this helps. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Appleby

Since you're the banning admin--no big deal, but Appleby is still around editing from his ip here 24.17.96.104. It's kind of irritating because he keeps making edits like this: [[4]]. I haven't had much time to edit lately, but I've been reading the diffs and constantly weasel words are coming from that ip, as well as dubious fact changes like this [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], and [[8]], etc.. It was so much like Appleby that I actually looked up his old checkuser request and was kind of surprised to find it was the same ip. At first I started tagging them as needing sources, but he's really on a roll today... Not a huge problem, and I guess ip's can't be permabanned, but is there anything that can be done? He's been editing from that IP since mid-May, so if he can change his IP he hasn't bothered for a long time. Komdori 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been dealt with. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--your help is appreciated. Sorry to have bothered you again. Komdori 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your advice would be appreciated

Joe, I've been having a bit of trouble with Miborovsky recently. I've offered to talk things over (on his talk page), but each time he kept ignoring it. Now he's been making stupid comments on the Mao Zedong talk page and to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of it. Do you know him well enough to have a chat with him and ask him to "give over", or can you recommend another way to deal with this? As I said, he doesn't want to talk unless it's to be petty, so I'm not sure what to do. John Smith's 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that he was being less than civil on the Talk:Mao Zedong page, I've been going through your general interactions with other editors on Wikipedia, and I think my previous comments still apply. I suggest learning to be a little more reserved in the way you interact with people. While it's great to to have a gung ho attitude about things, it can sometimes get to be a little too much. Be slow to take offense at what people write as it's very difficult to convey tone and emotion through the use of text. If you do this, I think you may butt heads much less often than you do currently. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)