User talk:Dekimasu

こんにちは。I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments, and I believe that all editing disputes can be resolved amicably. Please feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help. I will get back to you as soon as possible. I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.

Translation request

Hello. I saw you were volunteering to translate from Japanese. Can you help me evaluate Image:Fake of nanking.jpg and the book it's from, 情報戦「慰安婦・南京」の真実 [1] to determine how reliable a source it is, and of course to translate what the picture says? It's being used as a source in the IfD to prove that the images Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg and Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg are not original research. Thanks, nadav (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that the text on the first image attempts to call into question the veracity of the photos, so I wouldn't consider the second and third images original research. Asked my opinion as to whether the source is in any way reliable, I would say that it is written from an implicitly and explicitly nationalistic perspective; i.e., the source itself doesn't make a significant attempt to evaluate the topic with neutrality, whether it happens to be correct here or not. It isn't anything you would want to base factual statements in an article on, although it might be useful as an example of the form in which nationalistic Japanese people have objected to coverage of the events in question. It's lucky I'm able to rule against the source, because if I had any sympathy for it, I'd be accused of bias. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thank you! nadav (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on move request dispute

I (and maybe User:Stemonitis) would appreciate your comment at User_talk:Stemonitis#British_Raj_move_request_decision on a move request of British Raj. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been tied up over the past few days, and I will be for a few more, but sorry for not getting back to you in a timely way. After a brief look I can't express a strong opinion either way, but I feel that it's reasonable (if not necessary) to read the discussion as reflecting a lack of consensus. Since you're asking me as an RM admin, I'd suggest asking the opinion of User:GTBacchus. Personally I'd worry a bit that whereas "British Raj" includes the area that became Pakistan, it is a bit less clear whether that's true of the term "British India". It also seems like it might be reasonable to apply WP:ENGVAR here, but other British government labels on Wikipedia that might fall under ENGVAR are clearly inappropriate (ugh, "Her Majesty's Government"?), clouding the matter somewhat. Dekimasuよ! 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Hi: thanks for asking that question. Unfortunately, I will only be available to answer it properly this afternoon (or, alternatively, around 6 hrs from now). I hope this is okay, and I just wanted to let you know that I had noticed it. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have answered. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I answer it to your satisfaction? Thanks -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unavailable for a few days, but I've added my final judgment to your RfA now. As I noted there, I was hoping for a more free-flowing response. On the other hand, in the context of an RfA, I can't blame you for limiting yourself. Have fun with your administratools. Dekimasuよ! 10:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks again for asking the question. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bangalore?

Why was Bengaluru moved back to Bangalore? There was one more vote to keep it at Bengaluru.Reginmund 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a pretty extensive closing message that you might want to look through, but for one thing, the original title was Bangalore. There would not have been a consensus to move the page to Bengaluru, and the move to Bengaluru that did happen was not uncontroversial as claimed in the process. Dekimasuよ! 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Your close of the move discussion appears to have been guided solely by procedural nitty-gritties. In doing so, you've literally with a single wave of your hand invalidated a very long and detailed discussion of the move. This, you've done by pointing to an older discussion that is older by almost a year! It is also an insult to all the editors who took part in the extended polling in good faith. Now that you've corrected a wiki-legal anamoly with your hasty and imo, ill advised close of the discussion, do you expect us to open another poll to now 'discuss' moving it back to "Bengaluru"? (My reading of WP:BURO is that this is precisely the kind of bureaucracy that is to be avoided on wikipedia). I request that you read the discussions first, make amendments to your closing remarks and move the article back to Bengaluru (for reasons detailed in the poll discussions and this thread which has come up following your baffling close of the discussion on procedural grounds.

And no, I do not think there is anything 'controversial' about moving it to Bengaluru. If you think there is, please point out what the controversy is. Just because there is a detailed and lengthy discussion, doesnt mean there is controversy. Until now, you havent said anything about the merits of the arguments at all! You've only pointed out procedural details and not much else. Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Sarvagnya 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He said there's lack of consensus, which is a pretty accurate conclusion about the discussion and also a statement of his opinion on the merits of the arguments. This is a clear case of content dispute where an official policy would make things easier. Lotlil 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu, please reconsider your move and change Bangalore back to Bengaluru. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a more extensive explanation as requested to make it clear that I didn't restore the Bangalore title on purely procedural grounds, but I still don't see a consensus for Bengaluru, so I am unlikely to reconsider my close. If you want another neutral administrator to review what I did, that's fine with me. As far as the comment above about starting another poll, WP:BURO aside, I don't think that would be the best course of action. It has already been made clear that a large segment of editors are opposed to the name change, so it would be unlikely to find a new consensus in favor of Bengaluru a week after the first move request. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at An Jung-geun

Hey Dekimasu, I saw how wonderfully you handled the Lake Heavens RM - I think that you have a very broad & open mind & you are perfectly fitting to be an admin. Could you handle dispute & handle it with neutrality? I personally don't care what the result is as long as you do it. Thanks a lot. (Wikimachine 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

My impression from the first read-through (I'm very busy this week, as you can see from my sharp drop in contributions) is that the current introduction is acceptable. I would probably link the first and second sentences ("...nationalist, best known..."). I don't think "nationalist" is a great word to use there, because the context makes it almost sound like a profession, whereas the word is usually used to denote a character trait. On the other hand, I think it is a better term to use than "activist", because it much more succinctly states the type of activism in which he was involved. Referring to him as a murderer or terrorist is also unnecessarily imprecise when he can be referred to as an assassin. I'll try to get back to this again soon. Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		This is no bribery but I checked all of your discussion archive & you got only 1 barnstar! Well, there's no written rule that says you've got to have more than, but I'm so impressed with how you dealt the Lake Heavens stuff that I took time to pick an award - which reminded me, the sign of peace that you have on top of your discussion page. Gl. Wikimachine 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

War trophy move

Thanks for moving the page (I was the one who suggested it). User:Wmpearl, the page creator, has reverted your edits with no explanation. I think you did the right thing with the move. Would reverting his edits back be appropriate, or discussing on his talk page? Since he gave no indication for his decision (and probably just has a mild case of WP:OWN) I think reverting with an explanation for why on his talk page would be appropriate. What do you think? All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Dekimasu. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Jews and their Lies & On the Jews and Their Lies

The first is just WRONG. It violates all the Rules of Style, and is not the way the title is actually written - in pracice. So I'm going to revert your error. We should not re-inforce people's mistakes! Do you understand me?

Best regards, --Ludvikus 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contesting proposed deletions: The way to do it is not with a reversion, but with the following Wiki Tag: {{hangon}}. Best, --Ludvikus 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand me? Alarming, no? But Dekimasu, don't worry if you don't understand it. I for one certainly don't understand how writing "their" instead of "Their" violates all the Rules (capitalized) of Style (capitalized). -- Hoary 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I did here was undelete a redirect that is a plausible search term, and I wasn't involved in changing the location of any pages. Since I was undeleting the page, it wouldn't really make sense to leave the speedy deletion tag intact. I could have simply recreated the redirect, but as I noted, there was significant history that had been deleted without discussion in the past. Thanks for the various input. Dekimasuよ! 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hi, Dekimasu -- You know, I hope, that some of us are doing a major revision of the Manga article. We've been working on it for a month or so, posting lots of notices and invitations on the Manga and Manga/Anime project talk pages. We're working in small steps, adding new sections and removing old ones if there is no objection on the talk pages. You can see the material we're working on now on User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5.

Fairly soon, we are going to starting on the subsection dealing with the history of manga before World War 2. The draft material we're accumulating has a fair amount of Japanese language material in it, contributed and translated -- thank you, thank you -- by Japanese Wiki editor Kasuga. Much of the material deals with history from the late 1800s (Meiji) up through the 1930s.

Can we ask your assistance with this material? Not merely to confirm the translations, but also to help edit the translation for smoothness. We very much want to keep as much of this material as we can, both out of respect for Kasuga and because we feel it adds substantively to the article.

If you're willing -- and I hope you are -- can you leave a note either here or on the User Talk: Timothy Perper/Sandbox5 page?

Timothy Perper 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, and hopefully I can lend a hand (although I haven't had a lot of extra time lately, and probably can't handle doing a full rewrite). Let me know when things are ready for what you'd like me to do, and I'll take a look soon. Will it be at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox6? Dekimasuよ! 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Incoming links

Hi.

1. I've removed the categories until this is a live template.
2. YOu should not subst Ambox in it - you should call Ambox.
3. You need to support a date parameter for the cleanup category - see {{cleanup}} for the names
4. Good idea to run this off #switch on NAMSPACE to only apply the cast to mainspace and Talk
5. Good idea to have comments marking the beginning and end of the template as people will mistakenly subst it, and it then needs to be de-substed.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 2 October 2007 (GMT).

Nobel Prize in Economics

i noticed your opposition to renaming the econ prize, and thought you would be interested in knowing that there's another attempt to thwart the will of the community by subterfuge. you might want to check it out and share your views.--emerson7 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment there didn't really amount to opposition. It was just related to Google results. Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you're very busy but if you could spare some time, could you please answer my questions at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus? I don't know any other user who has this as their speciality area. Thanks! –panda 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion related to these things and left a summary of my views at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics (as well as a shorter note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves). Sorry to disappoint you, but I tried to give you a fair and impartial close. Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised by the results of the debate as I was expecting no consensus. This issue will probably come up again as this was the 2nd time in the last year so we'll see how it goes next time.

I strongly believe that Wikipedia's policy for common names should not have been followed in this case. Many of the people who voted to keep the page at "Nobel Prize in Economics" have not educated themselves in the topic, evidenced by the many incorrect claims they made. And they don't seem interested in it either since no matter what evidence is produced, they still hold fast to their beliefs. Or, after reading the evidence, they choose to invalidate it. Even if the title is a common name, it still lends support to the incorrect POV that the prize is a Nobel Prize, which I have been attempting to show ad nauseam that it's not with more and more, what I consider, more reliable references in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics to no avail because one editor (Vision Thing, the first to vote) wants to adamantly adhere to a single reference from the web (UK Encarta, in this case) just because it includes the text "Reviewed by: Nobel Foundation".[2] That doesn't mean that everyone who's spent time researching the topic agreed to move the page, but it's disgusting to see ignorant individuals decide on the direction of and text included in Wikipedia, which may be partly due to a personal grudge with me since I reverted their text at some point. (I'm primarily referring to the rationale being presented in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics for including the econ prize as a Nobel Prize in the Nobel Prize article.) Some of the people who opposed the move aren't interested in facts about this topic, they're just defending their POV and using WP:NAME as an excuse since it can be applied in this case. The most neutral name would have been the proposed name as it includes the Nobel name and neither supports nor denies its association with Nobel. The article was, in fact, stable for at least three years with the longer name. Now, it's being disrupted about once every 6 months to move/debate the page title...

Lastly, I personally don't know of any case where a common name falsely implies something about the topic that it isn't, but is used anyway in Wikipedia. (There is no ambiguity to what the topic is about -- it is primarily the false claim I am concerned with.) If you could help find an example for me in Wikipedia, that would be appreciated. In my mind, this is a special case but please prove me wrong.

–panda 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Flying squirrel? Centrifugal force? Principality of Hutt River? Nothing pops to mind, but that is partly because, as in this case, the people on one side support the view that the common name is valid despite not being official. We are generally descriptive rather than prescriptive in naming, which means relying to a certain extent on the established terms used in third-party sources. Maybe reading through the archives of Japanese diaspora would be informative... I was part of a long dispute there about the appropriateness of its former title, "ethnic Japanese". Another case I was directly involved in concerned the validity redirecting University of Wisconsin to just one of the state universities in Wisconsin. Directing you to other RM discussions that I've closed isn't very helpful, because if I am shown to be in error then they won't be useful anecdotes - but I made a close at Talk:Bangalore recently that might also be of interest to you. Dekimasuよ! 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments in Talk:Bangalore already but that case isn't really similar since its a name change from an old name to a new name, both of which were correct at some point. Anyway, I'll take a look at the first 3 you mentioned. And I ask that you look at the conversation below (it's very short). If you don't have time, let me know and I'll ask another admin. –panda 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you also take a look at this conversation about these edit and offer some advice for what to do? –panda 19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking the names of the individual prizes seems like overkill to me, so I prefer Vision Thing's text. That doesn't mean that the citation has to come out - it corroborates either version of the text and appears to be a useful reference. That said, the site is inconsistent in its own treatment - e.g., this page seems to indicate that the posthumous prize in economics in 1996 was a Nobel Prize by virtue of its phrasing. You are using a similar argument to state that the economics prize isn't a Nobel Prize, but the phrasing isn't tight and it could be taken to mean that after adding the economics prize, the committee (a) chose to keep the original five prizes intact, and (b) then chose not to create any more new prizes. The conversation itself could have worked out better, I agree. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! So I guess the final question is if the text + citation can be included, must be modified or removed, which was "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize, according to the Nobel Foundation." I'm the 2nd editor who has pointed out that citation as showing it is not a Nobel Prize. (The other can be found at Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics.) I agree the website is ambiguous with how it presents the prize but it also doesn't include it as a Nobel Prize when it lists the areas they are awarded in.[3] It only groups them together in several locations, one of which you've pointed out. The website for the selection/awarding committee doesn't make that grouping. I would also agree to modifying the text to state "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize, according to The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences." if how prizes are grouped is credible evidence that something is or isn't a Nobel Prize. If this is taking too much of your time, let me know and I'll ask another admin. –panda 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

canvassing

thank you for the canvassing note, i honestly didn't realise there were specific prohibitions against it. i've reverted those i could find regarding another matter. with regard to agf, for weeks i actually believed panda was making good faith efforts until i discovered and understood his tactics at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus. at some point, it just has to be called. either way, i take your admonitions to heart. cheers. --emerson7 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

People tend to look for reasons to bring about their desired result when they are convinced they're right, so it was a natural reaction for Panda to ask questions about the previous page move (which, from where I stand, was a somewhat questionable close). Even if it might seem that Panda was looking for an "excuse" to have the page moved in anticipation of a lack of consensus in the move survey, that doesn't mean he was acting in bad faith. People can be discouraged from wikilawyering without it being necessary to question their motives. Sorry if this response seems condescending, but it's good to maintain friendly relations whenever possible. Dekimasuよ! 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For another comment on this topic, please see the end of the "past history" section below. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

emerson7

emerson7 has been harassing me since I made a change to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry page due to a comment by an anon on its talk page [4] [5]. A quick look at my talk page, emerson7's talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not shows his uncivil comments to me. I don't know if these are enough violations to file a case at WP:WQA or if its even worthwhile. But in the mean time, he has been (1) removing good faith edits by new editors [6] [7], accusing one of them of level 3 vandalism on their first offense [8] and possibly driving away these editors from the project (Special:Contributions/Pavlina2.0, Special:Contributions/Dwolgel), (2) blaming the script for his reverts, such as "i pushed the wrong button before i could enter explanatory text."[9] or "sometimes the script get confused"[10] and (3) feigning ignorance such as "i'm afraid i don't know what you are referencing" [11] [12] to reverts he did several times [13] [14] [15] [16]. If this person still doesn't know how to use the scripts after having used them for over 6 months, can WP not allow them to use the scripts? He has been warned that using rollbacks in content disputes is not acceptable [17] [18] but continues to do it anyway, such as during his edit war with me [19] [20]. emerson7 also has a tendency to use the blanket edit summary "copyediting" or "cleanup" when he does include an edit summary. These don't say anything and are about as useful as not adding an edit summary. Sometimes, they're simply misleading, not necessarily incorrect. But I don't know if that actually violates any WP policy.

Should this case go to WP:WQA or some other venue? It's mostly a lot of small violations to different (newer) users and nothing that I can see as being any single serious violation. –panda 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you would be better off trying to file an WP:RfC/U since you raise many distinct questions covering a fairly long period of time. An RfC would require certification of the dispute by another user, but that seems like a fair possibility given the number of incidents you've cited. Emerson7 is frequently (if not always) very polite and willing to apologize when he has made an error, which makes WP:WQA less appropriate here here. What you really take issue with is the fact that he sometimes (often?) fails to address the problem or change his behavior after apologizing. An RfC would probably be the best place to discuss what changes might be needed. Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Except for being blocked and warned about using rollback scripts in edit wars, the points I brought up above where incidents that have happened in the last month, that is, during the month of September. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I'll think about filing an WP:RfC/U. (There's additional comments above regarding multiple topics that I would appreciate if you could reply to.) –panda 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Past history

If you didn't already check:

• emerson7 was blocked 21:43, 3 May 2007 for "persistent disruption & refusal to repond to requests and warnings". If you look at his talk page (+ history since he deletes items) you'll see how many editors he has disrupted and continues to disrupt on a weekly basis. (You are not the first editor I have asked for advice on how to deal with emerson7. I have deliberately chosen to not file a case yet since I know that he spends the majority of his time fighting spam in WP, albeit far too aggressively at times.)

• Vision Thing was blocked 14:43, 30 June 2007 for edit warring. And if you look at his talk Archive1 and Archive2, you'll see how many times he has been in requests for mediation/arbitration. At least two editors (User:Etcetc, User:Infinity0) recently chose to no longer contribute to Wikipedia because of Vision Thing's persistent POV pushing related to issues brought up in a failed RfA. If my conversation with him is any indication of how he normally responds to questions, then it's no wonder other editors get frustrated and cross over the line!

• Panda has never been blocked, instead my patience has been tested to great lengths. I have had one conflict with a new user User talk:Ahm2307, which I haven't repeated. Now it's (1) emerson7 (who can't handle having his edits reverted but does it all the time to others), (2) as of a week ago Vision Thing (who also can't seem to handle getting his edits reverted and has stalked others when they do), and (3) Anthon.Eff, who likes to use, what I consider, personal attacks [21] #2 with those who don't share the same views and refuses to do his own research for the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles. He hasn't produced a single reference yet to support his views but holds fast to them anyway by virtue of the duck test. What do I do to fight these disruptive editors? I choose to produce new references and check on WP policies! So if it's considered Wikipedia:WikiLawyering to check and question policies to better understand them, then I'm guilty as charged!

Please check the histories of the editors you choose to defend and accuse before doing so!

...And if you've taken the time to read this far, thank you for your patience in actually reading my frustrations with the system.  :)

–panda 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I haven't replied yet with suggestions as far as Emerson7 is concerned, but I want to reassure you that I myself wasn't trying to accuse you of wikilawyering. I was rather trying to point Emerson7 towards a more productive way of stating his opinion than by writing that you were "acting in bad faith", because he really meant "wikilawyering" or "forum shopping". They still aren't nice things to say about someone, but they can imply a simple misunderstanding or disagreement rather than an attempt to subvert anything. Dekimasuよ! 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3 topics

Re: your closing comments to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Requested move, a rewording may be appropriate. Note: I'm not challenging your decision, but I do think your comments need additional clarification.

• "RM in 2006 was closed as "move" rather than "no consensus""

Technically correct, but the decision to close it as "move" to "Nobel Prize in Economics" was controversial. There was agreement to move the page in interest of a compromise. However, there was no clear consensus (4-3) for what to move the page to. The admin (I assume) who moved the page to "Nobel Prize in Economics", whether intentionally or not, undermined those who agreed to compromise and work towards a new title in the interest of the community. If they had been as unwilling to compromise as those in the debate you closed, it would have been a clear no consensus.

• "the main consideration when trying to determine which page name is the established one is stability, not overall tenure; the established title in this case is the current title."

The current title has been challenged and moved twice in the last year,[22] 4 times if you include moving it back -- that's not stable. The previous title was stable for at least three years with no page moves that I can see. If we use your words, then the previous title was the established title because it was established via stability. So perhaps you should consider rewording that statement or defining what stability means in this special case.

Re: Japanese diaspora

• This debate is the most similar to the Nobel Prize in Economics debate but the editors in that discussion appeared to be genuinely interested in the content of the article and discussing the title rather than just giving a vote and leaving, as opposed to Nobel Prize in Economics, where the majority opposed to the move had actually not read the article or the corresponding Nobel Prize article as evidenced by their erroneous comments and how some of those who were opposed didn't participate in any discussion. If there had been say five or six editors who went to the Japanese diaspora discussion and simply posted that the current name is the common name, Google hit counts show that it is the common name, people would think they're on the wrong page with any other name, and then refused to listen to any other reason or simply left the conversation because they know they don't have to compromise (no consensus means no move), then you would have understood my frustration with this debate. Those who opposed the page move made no attempt that I can see to work towards a compromise.
• I also proposed five different options for the page title in hopes of a compromise. One editor who wanted a page move (Wikidea) replied that my suggestions would be preferred over the current page title, while two opposed to the move (emerson7 and Anthon.Eff) refused to compromise. One probably did so just because I made the comment and we have a past history (emerson7). The rest never responded.
• You should be satisfied with the results of Japanese diaspora as you stated that you would accept "any precise and correct title for this page over the current title." I hold the same position with Nobel Prize in Economics as I would accept any precise and correct title over the current title. Unfortunately, in this case there was no interest in working towards a compromise.

Re: Nobel Prize in Economics, Nobel Prize, and User:Vision Thing

• Every single conversation I've had with User:Vision Thing about this topic has been evasive and similar to User talk:Vision Thing#Nobel Prize in Economics. Put yourself in my position and ask how long you would tolerate such replies/behavior before becoming frustrated? I've been putting up with it for about a week now, with the page move survey going on at the same time.
• User:Vision Thing has, whether intentionally or not, simply disappeared for a few days and not replied to questions asked in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics only to come back and say he's not convinced and to continue to present the same old evidence he's already given. Is that kind of behavior considered acceptable in Wikipedia?
• He is also now discrediting information on the Nobel Foundation website saying that it's not a reliable source because it's a primary source, and can't be used in Wikipedia if there's no (alternative) "reliable source" that states the same thing. Really? The Nobel Foundation website is no longer a reliable source for info about the Nobel Prizes?

–panda 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are generally preferred, and all sides have noted inconsistencies in the Nobel Foundation website, so I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case here. That doesn't mean we can't mention the Nobel Foundation website and let readers decide for themselves how to interpret that information. It is better to discuss the issues than the users here, since it seems like the actions taking place here are in good faith. Dekimasuよ! 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments about your closing comments to the RFC? –panda 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the recent comments at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. I think that "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is a fair compromise and there is a reasonable chance that a request to move to that title could reach consensus. I don't have anything more to say about the previous close, but if you want, I will post a note at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics to the effect that the outcome and timing of the previous RM shouldn't be used to invalidate a specific request to move to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics". I'd advise you to make any request as narrow as possible to prevent rehashing the prior debate. Dekimasuよ! 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please add a note to the talk page. But I still don't understand what your definition of stability is since it contradicts every definition I know for stability. –panda 15:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that my comment above coincides perfectly with the current request, I'm surprised to see that you think I would be biased in closing the new requested move discussion. However, I suppose this is probably where you meant that I didn't respond, and I don't remember having seen this message. At any rate, I still maintain that "Nobel Prize in Economics" was the stable title of the page. It had been at another title for less than a day out of the last year, and the first move generated little momentum in favor of changing the page title after it was swiftly reverted. It is less trouble for me to simply stay away from the page, but I still think the issue is going to require further dispute resolution. Dekimasuよ! 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• You claim the page name "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" that was not moved at all for 3 years (from 2003-2006) is less stable than "Nobel Prize in Economics", which was moved 3 times in 14 months by 3 different editors (none by me)? This is currently the fourth discussion about the article's name since it was moved to "Nobel Prize in Economics", started by four different editors (none by me). Further, if you notice who moved the page back to "Nobel Prize in Economics" and who has been the most active in reverting and removing cited text from the article that shows that the prize is not a Nobel Prize, you'll see a pattern -- a single editor named Vision Thing.
• I don't know how you missed my question as (1) it states specifically four comments up "Comments about your closing comments to the RFC?" (posted 19 October 2007) and (2) you replied on 19 October 2007, but without answering those questions. So I'm still wondering about both points related to your closing comments, one of which is in the previous bullet.
• You previously stated on 19 October 2007: "I'd advise you to make any request as narrow as possible to prevent rehashing the prior debate" (my emphasis), but now you're claiming that the closing admin should look at prior debates. Why? Anyway, if you want the closing admin to be aware of all the comments on this issue, then all outside links should be listed, not just the few you've mentioned. Either you aren't aware of all the outside comments or you have chosen to selectively list them. In either case, if you want to appear unbiased, either list all of the outside comments, do not mention it at all, or explain your reasoning in more detail so that it would not appear biased.
• You have in fact accused me of wikilawyering despite denying it later: "Even if it might seem that Panda was looking for an "excuse" to have the page moved in anticipation of a lack of consensus in the move survey, that doesn't mean he was acting in bad faith. People can be discouraged from wikilawyering without it being necessary to question their motives." Considering you've only mentioned me in the first sentence (and the entire text, for that matter), who else are the "people" you refer to in the 2nd sentence?
• You wrote to me "Maybe one of the worst possible things to do is continue to argue until other users give up and go away." when I was only involved for 2 weeks but without stating it to other editors like Vision Thing who have been involved for over a year...? Vision Thing has actually quite successfully driven away other editors by continuing to argue about something until they are fed up. (e.g., EtcEtc) If you wanted to be neutral, instead of writing only to me that "At this point, it is clear that there isn't a consensus for the changes you're advocating (admittedly, that argument could also be applied to editors on the other side of the argument) ... It might help to take on a more eventualist perspective. We don't have a deadline to get things right, and if you disengage from the situation for a while, fresh users may come in and decide that they agree with you after all.", you could have written to all parties involved that:

At this point, there is admittedly no consensus for any of the edits by all involved parties. It would be a good idea for all parties to disengage for awhile so that other editors become involved and can help work towards consensus.

Instead your comments tend to be directed at me and are condescending towards me.

Considering the above, I believe I am justified in questioning your ability to give an unbiased decision.

• Further, you've stated: "I stand by my comment below. There isn't any point in searching for a consensus if some editors have already decided that they will only accept one possible outcome." when you stated in a different move request that "I'll restate that I will support any precise and correct title for this page over the current title." It's ok for you to state such but not for anyone else? That's contradictory.

Why don't you just vote on the issue or choose to be completely uninvolved instead making this into a larger issue? If you have issues with me questioning your biases, which I gather you do since you felt compelled to reply on the article's talk page, then why not work on resolving the above statements in a manner that would convince me that you are unbiased? If you manage to change my mind, I'll retract my statement. –panda 17:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will choose to be completely uninvolved, since I have no emotional or other interest in the title of the page. I thought that all of your questions here were answered last month, but that clearly wasn't the case (I didn't close an RfC, but you probably meant RM). Next, my comments related to previous discussions were to make a closing admin aware of the background of the case; reading the background can mean the difference between an informed decision and an uninformed decision, and RM closers do not generally look kindly upon new move requests so soon after old ones. The old discussion had already been referenced, and by stating that I wasn't opposed to a new move request I was attempting to keep the closer open to the possibility of a move. It shouldn't be necessary to rehash old discussion - i.e., it isn't productive to have the same editors type the same things again and again - but those old discussions should still be reviewed by any newcomer. I was basically offering to save another closing admin the hour of reading that it will take to close this move.

I still maintain that I did not accuse you of wikilawyering, and I thought I had explained this earlier. I was looking at the situation from the perspective of the other user, and suggesting that anytime he thinks something is wikilawyering, it would be better to avoid harsh judgments. I specifically mentioned that I believed you were acting in good faith, and I would have replaced "people" with "Panda" if that was what I meant.

The only editors who I have had direct contact with on this subject are, to my knowledge, you, Emerson, and Anthon.Eff. Anthon wrote on this page that he was disengaging from the topic, and I suggested that you do the same. Vision Thing has never contacted me and I have never written to him directly, which is why I didn't address him there. My remarks tend to be directed to you because you tend to be the one asking questions. But you are right that it would have been better to suggest disengagement by all parties on the article's talk page.

As far as your comment correlating my statements at Japanese diaspora with the one about "one possible outcome", I think there are two important distinctions. First, the statment from Japanese diaspora that you quote does not say that I will perpetuate the argument until I get my way - it notes that I will support, as a single editor, any change. It was also a possibility that I would reluctantly accept the title that I thought was wrong. Your statement to the effect that edit wars will continue if the title is not changed means that the consensus-building process has broken down. (You stated this earlier as well in reference to the other users: "in this case there was no interest in working towards a compromise". At that time, I still thought there was hope for a compromise, but in suggesting mediation, it showed that I have begun to agree with you.) Second, I was a less experienced editor at that time. I can't think of any scenario in which I would still make that statement, because I avoid emphatic attachment to article titles.

As far as stability, it is clear that our views conflict. In dealing with requested moves, it is usually considered good form to wait six months before opening a new request (this is the case despite the fact that I tend to feel such a limitation is too strict, and this is the reason I made the qualifications we talked about above). A normal Wikipedia contributor with an article on his or her watchlist is very used to its title after six months, or a year, regardless of how much time it spent at the previous title. Internet search engines have caught up to the new title, too, and forgotten the old one. The old title was certainly stable before the new one became established. It is like a dynastic change - but you don't need to like the analogy.

I hope I have answered all of your questions this time, but you don't need to retract any statements, and if you still disagree with me on some points, I'd like to agree to disagree. I would rather be avoidant here than continue to argue, and I will stay out of everyone's hair. Even if we did continue to argue and came to find that we agree, that would do little to help the current situation. Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and I guess Vision Thing doesn't care what you write since he's moved the article again [23] (not to mention reverted the intro text again to his version 26 edits ago). [24] Is this really a case for mediation or a RFC/U? –panda 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had considered move protecting the page, but for me to do so at any title would be bound to be taken the wrong way by someone. You might still want to ask for it. Dekimasuよ! 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• You still haven't responded to the first point in the list above, about the original page move to "Nobel Prize in Economics", which I've recently discovered was initiated by none other than Vision Thing. [25]
• Move protecting the article is pointless now. Vision Thing ended the article move war with NYScholar by making it impossible to move the article back by added a pointless edit to the title he disliked, which also messed up the redirect.[26]
• Regarding the accusation of wikilawyering, I would appreciate it if you make it clear that you're not accusing me of wikilawyering in the original thread (#canvassing) since most people would probably conclude otherwise based on the way you wrote the text.
• I stand by the statement that there will continue to be an edit war about the title until it is moved to something else. It's pretty obvious this is true considering how many times different editors have commented on this. If the title didn't affect the contents in the article, it wouldn't be an issue but that's not the case. Also, I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so in the current RM.[27]
• The current RM was started by an admin. So if another admin thinks that it's inappropriate for another one so soon, they should take it up among themselves.
• A normal Wikipedia contributor who has the article in their watch list should be fully aware of the edit war and likely would recognize any new name it moves to, especially since they would have probably participated in the RM.
• Search engines don't have problems finding articles that have moved and don't really care what title the article is as long as there is a working redirect. Neither Google nor Yahoo have any problems whatsoever finding the current article via a redirect (or any other article that has recently moved for that matter) even though the article was moved 6 times in 2 days over the weekend. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] So the search engine point is irrelevant.

–panda 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullet 1: I don't see a question there. Anyway, the article was moved according to the reading of consensus made by the closer at the time. If the admin made a good-faith effort to gauge consensus, I don't see anything out of process, whether I would have made the same decision or not. Bullet 2: Yes. Bullet 3: Okay. Bullet 4: That is a problem for the reasons I've already stated, but one that I don't want to be involved in anymore. I might refer it to someone else if the problem continues. Agreeing to disagree, or put up with something you disagree with, is an important part of building consensus. Bullet 5: The admin status of the person who opened the request is not likely to be considered, but my closing comments likely will be, and considering what they consist of, there shouldn't be a problem anyway. Bullet 6: Not relevant to what I consider to be a stable title. The point I was trying to make is that if regular editors are used to the title, it is a sign that the title is stable. Yes, they will notice if it is moved. Bullet 7: When turned into redirects, those locations fall down search engine lists over time. What the search shows is that the title Nobel Prize in Economics is at the top of the list now, not the title from 2003-2006, which is the point I was trying to make.

I am patiently trying to answer all of your questions, but as I said before, I don't understand your objective in arguing with me about some of these things; my opinion on many of them is of little importance at this point unless you actually want me to do anything. I was happy to leave the note above about wikilawyering. Dekimasuよ! 06:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• re: "if regular editors are used to the title, it is a sign that the title is stable." If that were true in this case, then the subject of the title wouldn't keep coming up from both regular and new editors.
• re: redirects and search engine results. It's not true that the old name will "fall down search engine lists over time". If I search for the old name "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" from 14 months ago, the WP entry is the first hit in Google and Yahoo. In contrast, "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel prize in Economics" is the 3rd hit in Google and the 4th hit in Yahoo. So once again, that's irrelevant.

In the last 14 months, editors have been arguing the same issues since the name changed (i.e., which name goes first, whether or not the official English name of the prize and the Swedish name of the prize can go in the first sentence or in the text at all), which did not exist before the name change. The text has gone backwards a few times since editors removed that (1) the prize was established by the Bank of Sweden and (2) it was instituted on the bank's 300th anniversary. Even though there are references from the Nobel Foundation documenting that the prize is not a Noble Prize, that text was still removed from the article claiming POV-pushing among other things. Also, since so many call it a Nobel Prize (in economics) or it is just like one, then it must be one. All of these indicate that the title "Nobel Prize in Economics" has only contributed to instability and general confusion in the article.

I can not see what you find so stable or established about "Nobel Prize in Economics" so that you previously stated: "the main consideration when trying to determine which page name is the established one is stability, not overall tenure; the established title in this case is the current title [Nobel Prize in Economics]."[34] –panda 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has not fallen down the list because links to it, like the one here, have continued to be created in these frequent discussions; that is not normally true of redirects. Stability need not indicate consensus for a certain title, but the facts that the page had been at another title for less than a day out of the last year, and that the previous title was determined by a requested move, dictated the relevant default page name upon failing to find consensus for the previous move proposal. I recognize that you disagree with me that Nobel Prize in Economics was a stable title. You can throw out "stable" entirely and replace it with "default" if you want to distill the discussion further. As before, I don't understand the purpose of belaboring the point. Dekimasuよ! 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

• At this point, it's actually incorrect to state that the title has been at another title for less than a day out of the last year.
• Of the 176 different links to Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, only 3 are from talk page discussions like this, 4 are from user talk pages like this, and 3 are from Wikipedia talk pages related to this. So I seriously doubt that the reason why it has not fallen down the list is "because links to it, like the one here, have continued to be created in these frequent discussions." Once again, irrelevant.

Reword your closing statement to the RM then if you now understand that "stable" can be thrown out. If you wanted to avoid this entire discussion, you could have simply said that the RM is from the current title instead of stating that it is from the "established" title, which you then further defined to be the "stable" title, both of which haven't been shown to be true in this case. –panda 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first point is disingenuous. I was referring to the situation when I closed the RM, which is what we were talking about, and which was why I said "had been". As for my understanding of redirects and search results, it comes from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion and not from my own research. You disagree with me that the was stable, which was why I suggested that you just read "default" wherever I wrote "stable". However, that doesn't mean I have changed my opinion of what is stable or established, and I will not reword my archived, month-old closing statement to suit your definition. If other people read that discussion or this one, they can and should come to their own conclusions about whether or not my reasoning is/was flawed. Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• My first point above is simply stating a fact that is true today.
• From Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion, an editor only stated that he believed that redirects will fall down the list, he never said that it was what really happens. [35] OTOH, you decided to repeat it as if it was a fact: "undoubtedly ... the redirect will fall down the list." You could have just tested this on your own to realize that it is wrong. Let's try a few other examples:

• "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences", a redirect that was first created about a week ago: the WP article is hit #3 in both Google and Yahoo.
• "Swedish Bank Prize", which has only one link to it from inside Wikipedia: the WP article is hit #1 in both Google and Yahoo.
• "Bank of Sweden Prize", which has five links to it from inside WP: #1 in both Google and Yahoo.
• "Economy nobel", which has no links to it from WP: #1 in Google and #2 in Yahoo.

Apparently it also has nothing to do with how many links there are to the article since according to Google, there are no articles that link to the "Economy nobel" redirect.[36]

• Other editors in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/More macrons discussion also brought up that as long as there is a working redirect, Google will find the article. That isn't new news.

I actually don't see anything in that archived discussion to give you any basis for your statements about redirects and search engine results. Furthermore, you've modified your definition of "stable" as this conversation has progressed each time I've found fault in it. It's apparent that we disagree about what is considered "stable". Anyway, I believe I've proven my point here and shown that none of your arguments about this issue stand up to any scrutiny. –panda (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anything Jecowa said there, but what Gene Nygaard said. I have not at all altered my definition of what is "stable" (the location that regular editors are used to, the location that was determined in a previous move discussion, the location that a page has almost always been at over a substantial block of time) although I have offered various points in attempts to illustrate to your satisfaction that it represents stability. If Gene Nygaard is wrong about redirects, it does not affect any of those basic points. You have rejected my definition in favor of your own definition, and that's fine. My standards need not be given more weight than those of other editors. I am still not sure what this discussion was meant to accomplish, because the old close is no longer being discussed elsewhere, and there was clearly no consensus for a move during the previous discussion no matter how I worded my close, and the close was in line with WP:NCON. I was not going to override a year-old close on procedural grounds, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Nor is Wikipedia a battleground, nor will continuing to repeat the same argument here persuade me. The number of man-hours spent on this discussion (and the main one) would have been put to better use elsewhere. I am sure you are trying to effect positive change. However, you have also shown that your passion to prove your points can exhaust other editors. Dekimasuよ! 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously missed the entire point of this thread, which was specifically about the wording of your closing comments for the RM, as stated at the very top of this thread. Read your previous posts to see how you've changed your definition throughout this discussion. At least you've finally stopped mentioned how search engine results are related to what you consider "stable". Anyway, you've made it clear that you don't plan to change your closing comments, despite the errors I've pointed out. Considering you're an admin who closes RMs, hopefully you've learned something from this thread and in the future will be more careful with how you word your closing statements. –panda (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am generally willing to admit to errors, but I fail to see any here. I will take from the discussion what I can. Happy editing. Dekimasuよ! 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize and Talk:Nobel Prize

Hi Dekimasu. I guess we need some help on the Talk: Nobel Prize page. I'm going to stay away from the page for a while, since I've completely lost patience with –panda. But I would appreciate it if you could take a look at what is going on there, and give us some advice. I'm asking you since I know that –panda respects you, since he has previously sought out your opinion. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you please take a look at the Nobel Prize page? At 17:34, 9 October 2007 User:Vision Thing did a complete revert of 17 edits (made by several different editors) [37] for unexplained reasons. Asking him why he reverted 17 edits on his talk page hasn't generated much of a response. He has selectively replaced some of the text and very few of the references, including reintroducing references that did not support the statements they referred to. I may also ask another admin for comments on this as I know you're very busy and this has already taken up a lot of your time. –panda 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing subsequently reintegrated several of the changes that were reverted. I agree that it's always better to leave edit summaries, but not leaving edit summaries isn't generally something we sanction editors for. If he reverts to a preferred version repeatedly, he may be in violation of the reversion policy, but one incident doesn't show that. Dekimasuよ! 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of topic burnout here, and I can understand why other editors are having that problem. I respect the decision by Anthon.Eff to WP:DISENGAGE from the topic for a while, and I wonder if you would be willing to do so too. At this point, it is clear that there isn't a consensus for the changes you're advocating (admittedly, that argument could also be applied to editors on the other side of the argument). Wikipedia works much more smoothly and effectively through establishing consensus than when it has to resort to mediation or arbitration. Maybe one of the worst possible things to do is continue to argue until other users give up and go away. It might help to take on a more eventualist perspective. We don't have a deadline to get things right, and if you disengage from the situation for a while, fresh users may come in and decide that they agree with you after all. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry

i don't know exactly what the procedure is, so i was wondering if you could assist with the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry regarding bringing a close to the polling that has gone on for the better part of a month. --emerson7 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that article RfCs are just another way to find a consensus, so they can't be regarded as binding if no consensus is found. I don't think there's much chance that we can extract a consensus out of that RfC, although to me it seems like a really minor point to be arguing over. I would generally favor using the list from the Nobel site (relying on an outside source is a good way to avoid imbuing articles with our own points of view), but as noted in a bunch of other places here, the Nobel site seems to be inconsistent and self-contradictory - so is it really a reliable source? At any rate, if this can't be resolved by looking through the RfC and finding points to agree on, you may want to look at another dispute resolution process. Dekimasuよ! 06:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samulili

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samulili, you stated that you were striking your oppose !vote, however I believe you may have inadvertently left yourself in the list which will still count as an oppose. I have fixed the formatting based on what I believe is your intent. Please revert my edit if I misunderstood. Ronnotel 13:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

no problem! :) Ronnotel 13:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks できます, for your participation in my Editor review. Your feedback has been very helpful in my recent edits. Once again, Thanks! --Hirohisat ^紅葉 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help at Kayqubad I

Hi Dekimasu. Would you mind taking a look at the move request at Kayqubad I and its associated pages? Many editors have posted opinions, and we would appreciate your disinterested perspective on whether it is time to wrap things up. Thanks. Aramgar 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I think it's a good thing that another administrator closed the request, since this also acts as confirmation of my first close. I think it's certainly fine to add alternate names in bold at the beginning of the articles. Let me know if you need any more help! Dekimasuよ! 06:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. Thank you. Aramgar 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dartmouth College

As a current or past contributor to a related article -- or an alumnus/na of the College -- I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Dartmouth College, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Dartmouth College. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Dylan 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Page Move: Adrian L. Peterson

Could you move this page for us?

• Adrian Peterson (Minnesota Vikings) → Adrian L. Peterson —(Discuss)— Names should not me team affiliated. Per: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) / name with initial is available, not that popular of a name —WikiDon 06:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NEED HELP - have consensus. - WikiDon 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiDon 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page, but I added a caveat on the talk page. Usually page move discussions last a bit longer than that one. Dekimasuよ! 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, but I think this one was pretty obvious, not likely to be much, if any, distention on this one. WikiDon 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer

Oops, you got it slightly wrong: "It has been proposed below that Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer be renamed and moved to Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer."[38] You deleted (07:37, 19 October 2007 Dekimasu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer" ‎ (deletion to make way for page move)) to make way, but then moved to Kilian Ignac Dientzenhofer, though. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image move request

You made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to fix the spelling of Image:Esente superbum.jpg, but that isn't one of the functions of that page. If you'd like to follow up on the change, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header#What can be moved? for more info. Thanks for your help! Dekimasuよ! 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I posted about this to the image contributor. ENeville 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Venetian Ceruse

Venetian Ceruse was the first title, then it was moved to Venetian ceruse without discussion, it is not possible to MOVE everything back once an article has been created unless the editor is an administrator. As you are an administrator, please MOVE everything back to the original article Venetian Ceruse as this is the correct capitalization, thank you. Chessy999 06:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I never used anything from Marvel Comics, I want you to advise, which sentences you find incorrect in the article that I wrote and I will change them, the version of the article YOU want to use is not very well written. Chessy999 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for adding the text here. First, the reference to the capitalized version of the name is unnecessary. We know that it is capitalized in some sources and not in others, and the one in question is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. The discussion asked us to make a decision about which capitalization to have the article at, and some other editors and I found the reasons for using the lowercase title more compelling. If you'd like, you can mention the capitalized spelling in the lede ("Venetian ceruse, sometimes capitalized as Venetian Ceruse"). Second, the phrasing you have used in the second and third sentences borrows too heavily from the second source. I'd suggest looking at examples of what constitutes improper paraphrasing, somewhere like this page (see examples 2 and 3). The intervening edits are questionable in terms of copyright problems and need not (more likely should not) be retained under the GFDL. I will likely clear the history there later. Dekimasuよ! 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Legendarium

I see what you mean. Unfortunately, we can't assume that everyone who links to legendarium in the future will be talking about the Tolkien term. What is needed is for a bot to go through the 1000+ Tolkien articles that link to legendarium, and change the links to point to Tolkien's legendarium. Then it should be OK to change legendarium to redirect to legendary (disambiguation). Would that work? Carcharoth 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Making very limited assumptions isn't such a bad thing. Designating primary topics involves a bit of triangulation in service to the principle of least surprise, but I doubt we're being too biased in favor of the Tolkien usage here. All of the link changes are done manually when that kind of page is redirected to a dab, but it's long and tedious (I've done several thousand myself), and it isn't always necessary. Adding an {{otheruses4}} tag to the top of Tolkien's legendarium would be probably be sufficient to take care of any remaining ambiguity in this case. After all, the Tolkien page discusses the general meaning of the term more than any other page in the encyclopedia, and if linked for purposes of a dictionary definition, the link should be removed. Dekimasuよ! 15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That said, if the links to the Tolkien usage were all piped to the full name, I wouldn't feel as strongly about where to point the redirect. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree in general. I made the change based on the discussion at Talk:Tolkien's legendarium, where a user raised concerns about it possibly being a neologism. I think they might have got that impression by clicking on a link and expecting a page about 'legendarium' and getting the article on the Tolkien term instead. I also removed the otheruses hatnote, but I'll put that back for now, and see about a bot request for the piping you talk about. Carcharoth 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was too late. Someone else beat me to it!. Carcharoth 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have checked the talk page earlier, but I've read through the discussion now. I think what he is objecting to isn't the fact that there are other legendariums, but that this article is about the phrase "Tolkien's legendarium" rather than about the legendarium itself - for example, what it consists of and why it is significant. There doesn't seem to be much of an encyclopedic nature to be said about the term itself. I understand that the current setup is partially the result of trying to defend the provenance and relevance of the term, but what he would probably like is for the article to be (and possibly be moved to) something along the lines of "[[History of Middle-earth]]" (cf. The History of Middle-earth, Harry Potter universe, Ender's Game series). Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we were talking past each other on that talk page. There are sources on all this, but it will take a bit of reading to get a clear picture. I'll give that a go sometime. Carcharoth 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

Dekimasu, I'm out of town, with a really bad web connection and probably no connection for the next few days. I've been frustrated by User:Nitsirk's POV edits on some of the education articles (for example, Nitsirk believes there are no disadvantages to mainstreaming any disabled student into a regular classroom except lack of money), and with the Talk:Grade retention proposal, I'm starting to suspect a sockpuppeteer. There are precious few edits by Nitsirk's supporters. Could you possibly look into whether User:Yasdnil and User:Refinnej are coming from the same place? It's the fairly distinctive language patterns that make me curious. Looking at Talk:Alternative high school, where Yasdnil proposes moving (well, merging) an article that Nitsirk has edited heavily might also be worthwhile. I'm sorry that I can't manage to deal with this myself, but I'm not even sure that my link will stay up long enough to leave you this note. Thanks for considering it, WhatamIdoing 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The note about my own suspicions about possible SPA activity was removed, and this note was removed as well, neither of which makes me less suspicious. I tried to be as nonjudgmental as possible when writing the SPA message, too, by not referring to meatpuppets or sockpuppets. There is also evidence of canvassing. I agree that something strange is going on, and I've asked Nitsirk about it directly. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Grade retention

Mine was not all opinion. Grade retention is too restrictive! It doesn't include students in college and beyond. Repeater is better because it is the more general term. I told my friends to sign on wikipedia to support me. Why can't I do that? Just as long as they agree with me. I know it's not a ballot. They gave reasons for why they chose support. How much do they need to put down? And I did removed your comment because it was in the wrong place. I placed it under the discussion part. --Nitsirk 11:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How come you oppose the title? Grade retention is horrible. I gave you the reasons and you still oppose. How come grade retention is better? It's too restrictive. --Nitsirk 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to me! I know you are on. --Nitsirk 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's taking you so long to respond? I don't have all day. --Nitsirk 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stay calm. I can't type on two pages at once. First, please read WP:MEAT (and read WP:CANVASS in case you haven't gotten around to it yet). I am not convinced that the comments on the talk page were written by three different people, particularly since one user only edits outside the mainspace, but for the time being I will accept what you've said. I would strongly suggest that you and User:Yasdnil avoid the same move/deletion/merge discussions in the future, or Yasdnil is likely to be blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Second, I believe that a merge is a better solution than moving the grade retention page, as I've said. Promotion (academic) could refer to any age level. The article is about the practice rather than the person, and that focus does not need to be changed. Dekimasuよ! 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But the promotion (Academia) is already an article. We can't use that. Thank you for your understanding. I'm going to tell my friends to not to that anymore. I'm just going to tell them to do different subjects since it may be confusing to some people. --Nitsirk 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I agree 100% that the user in question is a sockpuppet of Jessica Liao. The editing pattern and prose patterns are identical. Blocked. Thanks for the heads up! --Bradeos Graphon 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jessica

Yep, that seems to be Jessica Liao all right, same spread of articles, same patterns, even the three little periods she uses to punctuate...her edit summaries. Blocked. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Dub

Would you mind taking a moment to advise me on the next step in the proposal to move Dub? I suggested it thinking it would not be controversial (silly me), and it was contested. You moved the discussion to Talk: Dub, where it has continued, but I'm not sure how to decide whether I can re-request a move. I seem to have solid support from at least one other editor, who has included some basis for his position. The rest of the responses are opinions about the meaning of the word which those particular editors are most familiar with, which isn't really the same as a good reason for or against a move. I'm still a bit of a newbie as far as procedures go, and I appreciate the tone and level of your contributions, so I thought you could help me figure out how to determine consensus. Thanks! SlackerMom 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. It doesn't look to me like this is a discussion that is headed towards a consensus in favor of moving the disambiguation page, but you can request a full move at any time by following the steps for adding an entry under "other proposals" at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Doing that would at least bring some new people into the discussion. If you want some more specific opinions related to how the disambiguation could be set up most efficiently, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Hope this helps! Dekimasuよ! 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I think I'll push for a little more discussion before calling it quits, just to make sure. I appreciate your help! SlackerMom 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

HELP with Orlando disambiguation

Hi Dekimasu, I've noticed your name in the disamb w/ links project removing links to disam pages. I've been doing this also, lately, but I really screwed one up and I'm hoping you can go in as admin and rollback my mistakes. I inadvertently redirected Orlando to Orlando 9disambiguation), meaning of course to type Orlando (disambiguation). I've royally screwed this up and it gets worse every time I try to repair my mistakes. I'm getting dizzy. Any help you can offer is of course much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - my mistake edits were reverted by Ian Manka, no need for your attention here, unless you would like to simply ridicule me for my deserving ridiculousness :-). If you want to vent at my vain attempts at saboutage, you can here! Thanks! Keeper | 76 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I have clarified my wordings on question 5 of my RfA. Please read my clarifications to see if you wish to switch your stance. Thank you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but I'm still concerned about the original response to question 4. If there is a clarification to make there, please let me know. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonian pirates

Hello Dekimasu. I was going to close the move discussion at Talk:Estonian pirates, but found myself deeply divided on whether to close as a no consensus or as a move, since the arguments and sources provided by the move side seem to be sound. You're an experienced "move-closer" as well so I decided to ask you and another admin a second opinion. So, if you can spare the time, could you please have a look and tell me how do you think you would you close this one? Thank you. Húsönd 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I would have probably closed the move in favor of the title that was proposed near the bottom of the page, the fact that it blew up in the meantime and got sent over to ANI probably shows that my advice wouldn't have been very helpful in this case. Sorry for getting back to you so late. Dekimasuよ! 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Battletoads

The most recent edit to this article contains vandalism. Would you mind removing that? Just64helpin (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a little confused, but I hope this is what you had in mind. Let me know if you need any more help. Dekimasuよ! 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Undoing undiscussed moves / Bushi

I wasn't referring to you at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre and I appreciate your thought put into RMs. Please comment if you care at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves where I posted your comments.

Also, based on your interest in Japan, do you have a comment on this?

— AjaxSmack 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bushi is a fairly long and complex article on the Japanese Wikipedia, which goes to great lengths to distinguish between different kinds of soldier; bushi seems to be the most all-encompassing term, and the 武士 category on the JA Wiki includes most of the main articles on these different things (e.g. Ji-samurai, Samurai, Kokujin). I think it's clear that the page shouldn't be merged into Bushido, but it's understandable to want to merge it into Samurai, given that English fails to distinguish between the terms. Ideally, the article could be fleshed out; we could file a translation request at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/ja or we could ask for input at WT:WPJ. The key sentence for our purposes seems to be this one: よく言われるように貴族に仕える存在として認識された武士を侍と呼んだと言うよりもむしろ、上層武士を除く大多数の武士が侍身分の一角を形成したと言った方が正確であろう。It basically says that although "samurai" is often used to mean "bushi who were in the service of noblemen", in actuality, almost all bushi (except for the most affluent) served in that role at some point. There are various incongruities and overlap that make me confused here (ashigaru aren't samurai, but are they bushi?), so I'd rather ask others as well. Dekimasuよ! 14:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vampire films

Why did you change the article title? There wasn't a vote, merely an inconclusive discussion. Colin4C (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A move tag was placed on the talk page, and a listing was made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Uninvolved editors review the discussions after a period of time and decide whether there is consensus for the move in question (you can read the headers of WP:RM for more information). We don't vote on move requests, although surveys are often attached to them. I read the discussion in question and believed that there was a consensus to move the page. As the article contained extensive information on television, video games, and other media, the previous title didn't fit the scope of the article, and the discussion on the talk page seemed to have reached the conclusion that a move was in order. Dekimasuよ! 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The present article title is different from what was originally suggested. The editor whose suggestion was taken up is a different one from the editor who requested the move. The new title seems to be the result of one casual remark made by one editor in response to another. Also none of them has altered the headword or content to reflect the new title. Neither of them seems to be very involved in the article at all... Colin4C (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The present title seemed to enjoy support from all of the editors who commented on it, and neither the previous title nor the proposed title covered the current scope of the article. You can edit the lede as you like, or propose a new discussion, but it seems like this title is broad enough to fit the situation. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain yourself please

Please, see my post on the Balti talk page and explain yourself. Thank you. Moldopodo (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I will gladly answer your questions. Dekimasuよ! 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Marcela Agoncillo's POV issues

User:Neelix pointed out that it was the Japanese thing that prompted you to tagged the page with {{NPOV}}. I fixed it already and please share your thoughts on the talk page to have a better collaboration. P.S. It's my first try to have a good article nominee. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more communicative there, but I was using CorHomo at the time and wasn't able to leave sufficient explanation. Actually, I wasn't concerned particularly with the comment on Japanese soldiers, but it made me look at other claims in the article. I will visit the talk page now. Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with your nomination. It is good that you cite things such as "As a loyal companion on her behalf, Marcela was also a loving mother that she always taught her family and kins with good values." However, it is not enough to simply cite those claims, because they do represent value judgments. It would be better to say, "According to [Source XYZ]..." in those cases. There are other cases of such claims that aren't cited, e.g., "she raised her daughters to be fine ladies" and "she consistently provided her daughters with words of wisdom". It is clear that you like Ms. Agoncillo, but it is enough to let the facts speak for themselves. If you'd like to remove the NPOV tag, that's okay, but I think you will get similar feedback from the GA reviewers. You have done a good job with your research here; good luck in improving the article further. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good that you pointed out that all. I'll be fixing it now. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. I am even so thankful that someone noticed my works which could be rectified after. I am learning something from you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dekimasu, would you like to review Marcela Agoncillo for POV issues (if there's any)? Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates with red links

Hi, I'm looking for a techie who can reboot this project (i.e. generate a new set of lists from the latest database dump showing templates which contain redlinks). Can you do this? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the computing power (or, probably, brain power) to process database dumps myself. If you pulled my name up due to work I've done at WP:DPL, I'll just say that the dump processing is generally done by User:R'n'B. I'm sure it's a horrible pain for him to do this kind of stuff, but he might be someone who could point you in the right direction. Dekimasuよ! 09:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate the pointer. Cheers again! bd2412 T 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Hiya. Annoymous Dissidents comment at talk just got me worried - I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I think the point you've raised is really valuable, and I'm just trying to thrash it through! Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. When I replied to you, I just wanted to make sure that we weren't talking past each other. I certainly recognize the value of asking optional questions in many situations, and your examples are very appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RTV

No, somebody just hijacked the shortcut. Hiding T 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Isuzu Bighorn

Thanks a lot, now completed the move task, feel free to close the move discussion. Willirennen (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We should also fix the text to coincide with the new title... I changed a couple of instances in the lede, but I didn't look very closely at the rest of the article. I'll take off the move tag and make a small note on the talk page about the move. Dekimasuよ! 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a few more changes except where it describes it as an export model, feel free to make any further changes. Willirennen (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nur Ali Elahi

Hello, thank you for fixing the On the Origin of Species page. I am the one who originally started the request for the name correction. Now I want ask you if it is the right time to take the dispute tag off Nur Ali Elahi. It has been on it for a very long time and most of the users agree the name should remain "Nur Ali Elahi".--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that it's been gone for a while. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move: Astro Empires

Thanks for that but everytime I try to move it it tells me it is a protected page and I can't. How do I get it unprotected. Butch-cassidy (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The page protected against recreation because it's been deleted twice since it was moved to the project space. The article in the project space now doesn't appear to be significantly different from the version that was speedy-deleted on July 30, so I would suggest first contacting the admin who deleted the page that time (User:Carlossuarez46) or the admin who redirected the page to the project space in the first place (User:Raul654) to ask for their opinions. The page was most recently deleted by User:Deb, but that was definitely a valid deletion. At that time, the whole article consisted of about two sentences praising the game. As long as the deleting admins think that the current version would be okay, it will be able to be moved. Otherwise, you should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, considering how similar this version is to the one from July. Dekimasuよ! 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Doug Parker: primary topic vs. dab page

Hi Dekimasu. Per your suggestion, I posted my rationale for having Doug Parker link to the Doug Parker disabmiguation page, rather than to the airline exec's article. Thanks for looking at it. - Anirvan (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've posted does make sense to me, but it would probably be better to have more people look at it, since most of the people you mentioned don't have articles. I think you can convince most people if you list the move in "other proposals" on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page, but I don't feel sure enough about it to make the change by myself. Thanks for getting back to me... Dekimasuよ! 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fall

I will put up Fall (disambig) for WP:RM so we can discuss this. Talk:Fall (disambiguation)#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I've commented there. Dekimasuよ! 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

help needed to verify sources in section at False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

Dear Sir,

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse The section in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#False_allegations_of_sexual_abuse_in_childhood We need someone neutral that is well versed in wikipedia policies. If you aren't able to, would you be able to suggest someone else.Abuse truth (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The close of Watson

You wrote "The result was no consensus to move the page to James D. Watson", but i think you meant to write there is no consensus to move the page to James Watson. I was going to change it but thought it might be better if you do it. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the compromise is good, IMO. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger of interest

Hey Dekimasu, There is a rather interesting discussion going on here. I think that your opinion might be helpful in reaching a consensus/compromise. Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)