User talk:Nihonjoe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:53, 21 February 2008

日本穣 may not always respond swiftly to queries, so thank you for your patience

Please place new topics at the bottom of the page

Archives

Generally, I'll reply here if you post here, so please watch this page if you want to see my reply. If I don't reply within a couple days on another page where you replied to one of my comments, feel free to drop a message here. I have over 5900 pages on my watchlist, so I don't always catch everything new. Thanks! ···日本穣

Article not deleted

In reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 6#CodeGuide, there were two articles listed under that AfD; only the first has been deleted. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It's been deleted now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Per Bylund

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Per Bylund. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carabinieri (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replacing my link to FanLit.net

Dear Nihonjoe, I wanted to thank you for replacing my link on the Brandon Sanderson page. I have been nicely fighting with a couple of other editors for several days about the links I added that they took off. Unfortunately, I am new to editing (though I use Wikipedia a lot) and I made the mistake of adding a bunch of links to my own website at one time, which I now know is considered spam. We have a discussion going on about it here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Kahooper.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_and_links_to_his_website. I considered the site to be something that readers of those wikipages would definitely want to know about (I am not selling anything and I realize that links from Wiki do not change my search engine placement), but it seems I went about things the wrong way, so now I'm considered a spammer. I see that you are really busy, but if you are willing, I'd appreciate your input at that discussion. Kahooper (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper[reply]

What you're running into is conflict of interest concerns. Becuase you added the link by stating that you were linking to your own site, it was automatically assumed to be a spam link. If you think people might think your links are spam, I recommend posting the link to the talk page and asking people if they think adding it would be appropriate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nihonjoe. I mentioned on the administrator page that I now understand Conflict of Interest concerns (though I didn't when I started adding the links). Mangoe seems to think it is not a COI, but others think it is. I will wait and see how it falls out, and do what you suggest, but I hope I won't be "blacklisted" because of perceived spam. Kahooper (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper[reply]

Hi Nihonjoe,

I'm concerned about how low the bar would be set by accepting this link. I notice you replaced the link on the Brian Sanderson page (since removed by another editor than I). My objections to Kahooper's addition in part is the COI, but even were the link added by someone else, I would still remove it. The reviews are written apparently only in one case by a professional reviewer. I have no problem with that reviewer's work being added to the page, but linked or cited to the original work off of FL.net. The editorial oversight on this page appears to be Kahooper, who though they are a university professor or educator in writing, it is in scientific writing I believe, not fantasy and not literature, so a totally different domain. Though the bar may be higher than a random blog or the amazon 'write your own review' it's not much higher (in my opinion) and opens the pages to having links added by just about anyone with a website. Wikipedia is a huge magnet for external links, and my fear is that by not maintaining a strict adherence to WP:EL (and I realize my own interpretation is a strict one), then it makes it much easier for anyone with a webpage to rationalize per the guuideline.

I see Kahooper's actions as stubborn (but most new accounts revert without moving to the talk page because they're not familiar with wikipedia policies and mores - certainly not anything worth a block), I hope she realizes why I am opposing her page. Because it is one of many without any real claim to notability or expertise, not because she is the webmaster.

I usually trust the opinions of admins and often become educated by discussing. If you wouldn't mind giving me an idea of your rationale, and thoughts on what I've posted, I would be most appreciative. Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I (re)linked to it because the page provided reviews for three of Sanderson's books, they were decent reviews, and were likely to be useful to someone interested in quickly learning more about the books in the context of a review. Rather than simply removing them, I find it infinitely more productive to have the link there and only replace it if you can find something better. Yes, it may not meet your almost unattainable qualifications, but it provides something useful to the reader of the article. Removing it only removes that opportunity for the reader. The reviews on that page may or may not be "professional" (which is really a very subjective term for measuring, as very few sites give any indication that their reviews are edited, or that the reviewers are somehow compensated), but they are the ONLY reviews anyone has ever linked to from the Brandon Sanderson article. I think it is better to give the reader SOMETHING, rather than NOTHING. Apparently you and JzG disagree. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. As a note, though, my standard isn't really impossible. New books, sometimes even old ones, are reviewed in newspapers and magazines, and I believe it's Publisher's Weekly that reviews just about every new book that comes out. Also, this section gives a bit of guidance from what WIkiproject:Novels has to say. I've also posted a question here but the project seems to be rather moribund so I'm not sure what kind of response I'll get. WLU (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick S. J. Carmack

Patrick S. J. Carmack has been listed for deletion for 12 days with no objections. I thought 5 days was enough. Baked ham (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're waiting for someone else to participate in the discussion. We don't usually delete article on the say-so of one person. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Geinō Asahi"?

Joe, I've just corrected what I thought was an obvious slip in Weekly Asahi Geinō: saying that the magazine it's not to be confused with is Shũkan Asahi, not something called "Geinō Asahi". But then I realized that it was you who wrote the latter. Well, you usually have a good grasp of what you're writing about, and I'm no expert on weekly (or other) magazines; maybe there really is a Geinō Asahi. So maybe I screwed up. Don't hesitate to revert! -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Japanese title of Weekly Asahi Geinō is Shūkan Asahi Geinō. I'm sure you can see where there might be confusion between Shūkan Asahi Geinō and Shūkan Asahi. I've changed it back. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hang on. First, I'll admit that my question above is confusingly constructed. But let's set aside my question. I completely agree with your answer. However, the article now says (after markup stripping): Asahi Geinō is not related to the Asahi Shimbun or to the similarly-titled Geinō Asahi (which is owned by the Asahi Shimbun). Is this right? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct. Weekly Asahi Geinō (or Asahi Geinō, for short) is owned by Tokuma Shoten. Shūkan Asahi (or Weekly Asahi) is owned by the Asahi Shimbun. Similar titles, but not the same company or magazine. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I agree with all of that. And I agree with your edit summary for your most recent edit to the article. But look again at what you've got the article to say. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it just for you, since you seem to be having so much difficulty putting it together. Is that better? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Gasp.) I hate to say this, but no. You're talking here about an Asahi Shinbunsha publication titled Shūkan Asahi. Fine. You're talking there about an Asahi Shinbunsha publication titled Geinō Asahi. I've never heard of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. It would have been easier if you had just written, "In the article, you have "Geinō Asahi" as being owned by Asahi Shinbun, but the title is actually "Weekly Asahi" (or Shūkan Asahi)". You kept beating around the bush so I didn't understand what you were trying to say. It's fixed now. (^_^; ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But look, when I encounter a bush, the first thing I think of is beating around it. (Should I instead whack it or something?) Yes, you have a point: my success at the very start of this in implementing WP:SPADE without having some ~~dipshit~~ well-intentioned user hit me with WP:CIV should encourage me call them as I see them.

It's good that we finally agree on the magazines. (I haven't seen this week's issue. Any really tasty pics in it?) And on IOND "University" too. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's in this week's (or any other week's) issue as I don't read either. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed with Shōsuke Tanihara article.

Howdy! Article Shōsuke Tanihara was recently nominated for deletion. The nomination was withdrawn per notability established from Truth or Doubt. Currently, the article is nothing more than a list of movies he's appeared in. I'd like to add some meat, and I was hoping you could help identify and translate information about his personal life and prominence in Japan. Google news has lots of hits [1] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

Hi, I know you can understand Japanese. I have created an article, but I need to write the pronuntiation of アソボット戦記五九 for both the infobox and the introduction text of the article. Can you help me? I don't know too much about Japanese. --Twicemost (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

アソボット戦記五九 is the Japanese title of Monkey Typhoon, so I'm not sure why you need that for the Vampire Master Dark Crimson article. They have nothing to do with each other. The Japanese title for Vampire Master Dark Crimson is VAMPIRE MASTER ダーククリムゾン. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, SORRY!!! I taugh you the worng scripts. This happened because I didn't know how to make infoboxes and, because I had to make one to create the article, I copied that of the Monkey Typhoon article to use it as a guide. But it seems I accidentally wrote here the kanji of Monkey Typhoon instead of the kanji of Vampire Master, please forgive me for this.

What I need is the Japanese pronuntiation of the manga's title, as the infobox says A name trans in the title space. --Twicemost (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 :アソボット戦記五九 is the Japanese title of ''[[Monkey Typhoon]]'', so I'm not sure why you need that for the ''[[Vampire Master Dark Crimson]]'' article. They have nothing to do with each other. The Japanese title for ''Vampire Master Dark Crimson'' is ''VAMPIRE MASTER ダーククリムゾン''. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
+Sorry, sorry, SORRY!!! I taugh you the worng scripts. This happened because I didn't know how to make infoboxes and, because I had to make one to create the article, I copied that of the ''Monkey Typhoon'' article to use it as a guide. But it seems I accidentally wrote here the kanji of ''Monkey Typhoon'' instead of the kanji of ''Vampire Master'', please forgive me for this.
+What I need is the Japanese pronuntiation of the manga's title, as the infobox says ''A name trans'' in the title space. --[[User:Twicemost|Twicemost]] ([[User talk:Twicemost|talk]]) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)