User talk:Ishikawa Minoru/Archive3

Your RfA

While I think your heart is in the right place, I don't see your RfA passing. There's quite a few editors (myself included) that are keeping a neutral position to stop this from becoming a dogpile. However, I think you are going to do better next time. You have said that you want to get involved with anti-vandalism. Now, you already have a really good start and if you are interested, I would like to help you out.

Recent change patrolling is monotonous sometimes, but it's a necessary task and it's something that you just keep getting better and better at the longer you do it. On bad vandalism nights I can revert 150-200 vandalisms in the space of 2-3 hours. One thing that I suggest is that you get the anti-vandalism utility "Twinkle". It is absolutely invaluable in doing anti-vandalism work because it automates many of the tasks that you otherwise have to do by hand.

Any questions I can answer, anything I can do to help, just ask. Trusilver 06:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I'm not too confident my rfa will pass, either, but I'd like to see what people decide on. There is room for improvement, there always is, but I consider myself responsible enough to deal with administrative tools.

Regarding Twinkle, I've been using it along with Lupin for a while now. It's definitely better than having to wade through all those pages. It's easier to rollback pages and you can even leave messages in users' talk pages. -- Ishikawa Minoru 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your RfA

I have closed your RfA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote. If you address the concerns that were raised on your RfA, please consider rerunning in the future. Regards, --Deskana (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll trim those edges and return. -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you'll be back :D Hopefully you'll take on board the advice given, and you'll be a great admin one day! Giggy _U^CP 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Block

The anon user 81.107.152.205 had been given only one warning, and had only three edits. So, a one day block is sufficient. Usually, such users soon realize there's no point in vandalizing Wikipedia and get on with their lives. If the user vandalizes again, s/he will be blocked for longer duration. utcursch | talk 04:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Blu-ray playback

Hi, this is in response to your comment on the PlayStation 3 article’s talk page, where you asked about the console’s Blu-ray playback. The PS3’s Blu-ray functionality is region-locked, so a Region 1 unit will only play Region 1-encoded Blu-ray discs, and so on (for more information on Blu-ray regions and how they are different from DVD regions, see the ‘Region codes’ section of the ‘Blu-ray Disc’ article). PS3 games, however, are region-free (as of now), though the backward compatibility feature is region-locked — in other words, PSOne and PS2 games will only play in the regions in which they were produced. In case you were wondering about my source, I got this information from IGN PS3’s Official PlayStation 3 FAQ. I put the reply here in case you don’t have the PlayStation 3 article’s talk page on your watchlist. I hope this is of use to you! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 10:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial talkpage

It seems like I need the allies in some little edit war on the Holocaust Denial page. If you agree with my position, you can make some undoings of their revertions if you like. By the way, about demographics - there are many controversial sourses about demography. I've read translation of Wansee protocol. There is a number of 11 millons of Jews, living in the Europe is pointed (http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm). But there is no mention about extermination there.--Igor "the Otter" 13:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Hisamoto

I've made a slight addition to Masami.She is the Queen of owarai.----Michiko Makube 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 　[reply]

Nihongo in "Wataame" photobook

"We should feature the English translation of the titled followed by it's original title and its romanification."

I would think the romaji of the title should be first since it is how the title is said and doesn't exactly change the title of the book. Song tracks have romaji first, then Japanese, and then the English translation so why should it be different for books? Of course, katakana words should be romanized in their correct translated spelling. I not sure if there's a definite rule on how {{nihongo}} should be used but and I'm not completely one-sided (changing my mind is fairly simple ;D). ☆Charles Nguyễn 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song titles are usually longer and much more complicated to translate than a simple photobook title. When there is a perfectly fine, two-word translation, for 'wataame', I think we use it instead of the romanized version. This is obviously not set in stone and I don't really mind either way. -- Ishikawa Minoru 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism Warning

You flagged my last edit of Sam Totman as vandalism, but if you had looked at the change you would have noticed that I actually fixed a contradiction between the first two lines of the article. The two disagreed on his place of birth, so I edited it so they both reflected the place named in the only source for the article. Therefore I am reverting to my revision. 71.98.94.127 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Narita Risa.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Narita Risa.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Railfan PS3 Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Railfan PS3 Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling rate and quality

I reverted your recent well-intentioned edits to sampling rate, along with intervening uncommented edits by an anon IP that didn't look right. You removed the section on oversampling, which is a good place to elaborate on the reasons for oversampling if you like. But don't imply that the sampling theorem says something about quality, or make other unsourced connections to quality. We've seen too much of this audiophile argument in the past, and need to keep the article more neutral, technical, and sourced. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you read what I wrote because, if anything, my additions imply (or rather, openly state) audiophiles often misunderstand the principles behind the Nyquist Theorem.

Right, I objected to you implying anything about what audiophiles think, without a source.

I've provided sources for my claims—these being that higher sampling rates such as 60 or 192 Khz are an overkill and may actually cause sound distortion—among which a document used in the Spanish version of this same article (from which I translated parts of the article I posted before you reverted-it's a featured article over there, by the way.)

The self-published Dan Lavry essay does not qualify as a reliable source. It opens with an error, even: "Dr. Nyquist discovered the sampling theorem". He admits that "the author's motivation is to help dispel the wide spread misconceptions regarding sampling of audio at a rate of 192KHz" which makes it not very NPOV, too. Something like this, if not self-published, could of course be cited in a balanced discussion of oversampling, so if you'd like to expend the section to include such a viewpoint, that would be good.

I was unaware of the fact Mr.Lavry's creditials were shaky. I would be glad to look for better sources. If you find anything relevant and informative, please share it with the community.

As such I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. I didn't replaced the section on oversampling, I merely integrated it into the article. It was small to begin with.

You took away the section header and removed the content that said there are reasons why people used oversampling. You replaced it with opinions about why oversampling should not be needed. You said it is "employed only because..." without a source for the "only" limitation.

Would it be okay to use the above sentence without the "only" limitation? Again, these aren't opinions of mine, but rather what I read about the subject and considered to be canon.

I still think the original statement bar "only" is usable.

Perhaps so. It would read "Higher sampling rates (whose Nyquist frequency surpass human hearing) are employed because low-pass filters (filters used to attenuate signals with frequencies higher than the cutoff frequency—frequencies higher than those humans can hear, for example.) aren't perfect." Probably OK, sort of redundant with what's there, but I'm sure you can work it in.

As for quality, I don't think (or at least didn't mean to) I implied the theorem was responsible for a decrease in sound quality. I stated perfect reconstruction of an analog signal was possible provided the theorem was met, after which it was up to the adequate filters to do the job of preventing aliasing. If memory serves me right, I stated this was due not to the theorem itself but rather to imperfect, non-ideal nature of the filters used.

You stated, "Provided the criteria outlined in theorem have been met, sampling at high frequencies does not provide an increase in terms of quality. For a given bandwidth the number of samples needs only to exceed twice that bandwidth." The actual conditions needed to get high quality are in fact much more complex than merely satisfying the sampling theorem, and include filter considerations, and you note. So this statement seems to be incorrect, or at least baseless and content-free.

I think we should make it clear (this is the information I got) higher sampling rates by themselves aren't enough to make something sound better. Simply increasing the sampling rate without taking into account filters used isn't the right away to look at the problem. You seem to agree with this, so why not mention it?

Why do you want to be so clear about knocking down a non-existent strawman? As long as there's no implication that higher sampling rates are going to make for higher quality, what are you accomplishing by saying that it's not true? It would be much more informative if done in the context of a sourced statement on how higher sampling rates can help. If I were you, I'd look for sources for several points of view on what's good or not so good about oversampling, and beef up the section based on those sources. Start here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the above, I request you make your position on the subject clearer and objectively state what is wrong with my revision.

I hope I have done so. Thanks for your consideration. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wrestlemania XX

How can you consider the description of the Lesnar-Goldberg match as vandalism? The chants are an important part of both WWE and Wrestlemania history and are even noted on their personal pages.

The edit I reverted read 'ew'. I wasn't sure the second portion of your edit was vandalism or not, but considering you had written 'ew' (which vandals sometimes do, along with other nonsensical expressions) I wasn't sure I could trust the rest.

I hope you understand why I did it. Try to check your revisions before you post them, so as to avoid misunderstandings like this one. --Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed the "ew" just now. It was an unintentional typo and certainly not meant as vandalism as I take wikipedia very seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.141.3.139 (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought this issue to my attention. I also hope you understand the reason I reverted your edit and bear no resentment. It's sad some people take pride in vandalizing Wikipedia. They make it hard for people like you and me. -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minegishi Minami

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Minegishi Minami, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Minegishi Minami. Doc^g 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undo?

Why exactly did you undo my edit? Was there a particular reason? You didn't mention one. You just removed it. Very annoying.

Anyway, I added it back in. Remove it again, if you want. Maybe you'll be civil and give a proper reason? Maybe you won't undo it again? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.35 (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Would you be kind enough to contextualize your previous statement? I'll readily take the blame if I mistook one of your edits for vandalism. It is also possible I reverted it because you're edit was either unencyclopedic or unsourced. -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]