Generally, I'll reply here if you post here, so please watch this page if you want to see my reply. If replying on another page, use the {{ping}} or {{reply}} templates to make sure I notice your 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. Thanks! ···日本穣
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.
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 Nihonjoe21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe02:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
{{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)[reply]
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: [1]), 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 [2] and here [3]) and it was told to me that i need to contact bureaucrat for this purpose.
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe10:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!17:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. –xenotalk
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!22:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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 Nihonjoe18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey. I've started doing some work on Mars, and was wondering if Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga, Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comic, or Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics had anything on the series? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding as requested :-) On an unrelated note, I noticed you work in the changing username area a lot. I'm thinking about changing my username, but with the number of edits I have, I'm concerned about timing it so that I will be able to quickly reregister and lock my current name to prevent impersonation. Do you have any suggestions on how best to do that? I'm guessing with the number of edits I have, such a request will take quite awhile to process? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 14:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. it will likely take a while, maybe a day or more to get all your edits reattributed to the new username. If someone did register your old username in the meantime, we could take care of that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks, though I don't think you should quite 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 Nihonjoe02:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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 Nihonjoe19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello Nihonjoe, thanks for your note. I appreciate your kind comments and constructive feedback. My editing pattern on Wikipedia is largely due to personal choice, of course, but has in part been influenced by past incidents. Some of the subjects I have worked on, such as those related to Korean martial arts, tend to be contentious in one way or another. With the editing pattern I use, if other contributors disagree with some of my edits, it is straightforward for them to target the exact changes they disagree with. I have also been on the other side, where someone has made substantial changes in one edit and it has been more work for me to disentangle things. I appreciate your comment on others trying to make edits at the same time, but it has only happened to me once (to a significant extent)—and in that particular case, both of us were working together (with mutual awareness) to prepare the article for GA review. For whatever reason (e.g., time of day), I don't find that I clash with other editors on this point, but I am aware of the potential for unintended clashing. Thanks again for your note. Janggeom (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, given your role in WP Japan, if you (or anyone else from WPJ) would be interested in reviewing or providing feedback on Japanese martial artists' biographies, I have worked on several of these over the last few months. I would be very pleased to help implement changes so that these articles conform better to Wikipedia (and relevant WikiProjects') policies and style guidelines. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nihonjoe. You have new messages at Pedro's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Stop wasting my time
Being an admin is a volunteer job and you're not being forced to do anything, so if you're unwilling, unable, or just too lazy to do the job you signed up for, perhaps you should leave it to those many, many admins who are willing to actually do so. Go do something else productive.
Even more to the point, the source of these "stale" -- what a meaningless term that is -- reports are from the "New Pages" unpatrolled backlog -- exactly as suggested on the page itself. Let me quote that button that I clicked: Please consider patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog. Perhaps you can take up your crusade with whomever was responsible for setting the standard I'm working from. --Calton | Talk14:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also another quote you may want to note, from the UAA page to which you're posting: "Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported." Being an admin doesn't mean blocking everyone who gets reported to UAA or AIV or deleting everything that arrives at CSD. It means making a decision based on facts and policy. Based on the current set up, accounts that haven't edited in some time don't need to be blocked. So we must decline to block, which does indeed take up some of our time. If you'd cease posting usernames whose block we both know will be declined, it'll save everyone time. Otherwise, try to get consensus to change the policy. Useight (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical Hapkido
Just curious why you put the AfD for Tactical Hapkido on the Japan related discussion list? Hapkido is a Korean art and Tactical Hapkido is an American adaptation of it. Where does Japan fit in? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It came up in a search for Japan-related deletion discussions. No reason other than that. Japan is in between Korea and America, so that's where it fits in. ;p ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe01:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be removed, since that Hapkido is a wholly Korean art. Given the real life animosity between Japanese and Korean styles, I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to put it in that category anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrew D Burns
You apparently deleted the page I posted last week calling it "blatant spam" ... I put in for a user name change from revadburns to Andrew D Burns so that it would be a valid user account, but that apparently didn't take either.
Of course, I did not copy and save the data on the page, so it's lost forever?
Is there a way to get the page data back so when it's re-submitted that I don't have to spend the hours it took to build it all over again?
Thanks for your help!
Rev. Andrew D. Burns
www.lifeapp.org
Re: Help in deciphering 1860s handwriting
Hello, I saw your request for help on User_talk:Durova in deciphering a letter from William Seward to Joseph Heco. If it helps, allow me to offer you my partial reading of the second page:
our nation is rescued from danger.
He has been pleased to visit
me with trials, but he has
graciously enabled me to
? through them. Let us in
all things submit ourselves to
his will. He is omniscient and
omnipotent ? ? ? ?
?.
Faithfully your friend
William H. Seward
