User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ok.You must say so when introducing yourself. "Nihonjoe tongue is devil's tongue.","Nihonjoe hand is snake palm." "My family has devil's tongue and snake palm" Do you promise? (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It is more nonsense to keep using the racial discrimination word disregarding a local word. You are a racist of the double standard. (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comments still make no sense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

US Drought of 1988

What the Hell does userfied mean? and I improved the article since I accidently created it. It wasn't that bad and I wasn't done. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It means it was placed into the User namespace. In this case, you already had it at User:Daniel Christensen/US Drought of 1988. You can improve the article there until it is ready to be in the main namespace, and then move it to US drought of 1988. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for reviewing the article Krohn_(port). It wrote it since I found a red link on Krohn. Should that text be removed as well, due to A7? Hallgrim (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources to use in creating the article, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, it may be good to remove the redlink. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese interwiki on Oscillation

Hi, Nihonjoe

A Russian editor suggests that this edit put a wrong Japanese interwiki (the user make similar edits in RuWiki and other language projects). Can you check? Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the previous article (ja:振動 (物理現象), with a meaning of "oscillation") was redirected to the current article (ja:振動, with a meaning of "vibration") on March 15, it doesn't really matter. "Oscillation" is a type of "vibration". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kanji/Kana for "review"

Searching for anime/manga titles based on their Kanji or Kana titles can often lead to lots of misleading or irrelevant Ghits. I would like to refine these searches by adding the Japanese equivalent to "review" to the query. I was wonder if you will help me in that regard. Please leave a reply on my talk page at your earliest convenience. --TheFarix (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "equivalent to 'review' to the query". Please elaborate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Not that I'm speaking for Farix, but it seems to me he means something along the lines of searching for "Most Ultimate Series!!!11 review(s)" instead of "Most Ultimate Series!!!11", as a way of refining search results. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Aha. That makes sense. Well, Sōsetsu (総説) means "review article", a book review is Shohyō (書評) (and a column for book reviews is Shohyōran (書評欄). I also see レビュー used a lot now (since it's cool to use English). Oda Mari may have some ideas, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Ogasawara

Nice rearrangement on the Ogasawara disambiguation page. However, I thought it was best to add a redirect link from Ogasawara (disambiguation) to Ogasawara, for convenience. P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing links to Ogasawara (disambiguation), and it's very unlikely someone will search for that as opposed to just Ogasawara. I see no need to have that redirect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
But, whatever. It looks like you already recreated it anyway. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you over something like this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitsuo Hashimoto

A tag has been placed on Mitsuo Hashimoto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TimonyCrickets (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as Mitsuo Hashimoto is the real name of Kinpei Azusa. I've modified the latter article to reflect this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nihonjoe! Thank you for the changes you made. I certainly do not want wish to delete correct information or add in incorrect information. However, in doing a number of searches I could find no reliable source which pointed in any way to Mitsuo Hashimoto being another name for Kinpei Azusa. I am in no way an expert, so please forgive me if I am not looking in the right places, but I think that sort of a fact needs a good source. Do you happen to have one? TimonyCrickets (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I turned it into a disambiguation page as I've found three people with that name now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've now translated the article for Mitsuo Hashimoto (manga artist). Is that the one you were wanting? If not, the director should be done later today. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the director's page is done, too: Mitsuo Hashimoto (director). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I should also point out that WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply to redirects. There is no applicable speedy criteria for a redirect like this. This really isn't relevant anymore as it's not a disambiguation page, but I thought you may want to know. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate knowing that actually! And wow you have done so much work. I am sorry for the mix up before. I will be sure to be more careful with my CSD categories in the future. TimonyCrickets (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Another thing you should know (since your account is new, though you appear to have more experience than you 13 days of account-holding): it's generally frowned upon to use generic templates on experienced editor's talk pages as they appear too impersonal. A short message will do as most established editors already know everything stated in the generic template you used above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
And, I'm one of those admins mentioned in the generic message above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Willis

Nihonjoe, back in November 2006 you archive these dicussions on the talk page relating to the article whose subject matter is the the writer Dan Willis. At the time I was suprised that you archived the discussions on the talk page in view of the fact that the discussion that had been posted there were quite short in length, and were less than a year old. I was also suprised that the archive clock was set to 1 month in view of the fact that dissussion hardly every took place. The discussion that took place concerned the issue of notability in which both of us expressed shared strong views about the notability of the subject matter.

However, looking at this article's edit history, I realise that it was you who created this article to start with, as well as contributing the photograph of Dan Willis himself. Whilst I respect your right to create these articles and to contribute to them, I would ask you to refrain from attempting to archive the discussions again, and I would ask other editors reading this post not to do so either.

The reason I am doing so it that I feel that it is healthly to discuss the issue of notability and article content, and rather than trying to hide these discussions, I think it is better to allow other editors to join them, even if they are were started many years ago, in the hope that they will encourage others to make a positive contribution to the article. Some editors feel very possessive about articles that they have contributed to, particularly those that they have created. Some go so far as to defend their creations against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. You have been lucky to have met Dan Willis in person or to have an interest in his work, but I feel archiving discussions that you may not agree with may be a symptom of over protectiveness and I would be grateful if you reconsider being more understanding of those editors with whom you do not agree. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? When I archived them back in November, it had been 7 months since anyone had posted anything to the talk page. SEVEN MONTHS. The discussion was obviously over at that point as no one had cared to post anything new for seven. This time, it had been just over THREE MONTHS since someone had last posted. The only person who seems to want to keep beating this horse corpse is you. Additionally, as I've told you before, archiving the discussions is not hiding them. There was a convenient archive link right at the top of the page for anyone who cared to review past discussions. Exactly how is that hiding the discussion? YOU are the only one who wants to continue this discussion. YOU are the only one who claims the issue hasn't been resolved. ONLY YOU. Please stop being so disruptive. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are unhappy with my suggestion, perhaps we should seek some sort of mediation on this issue. If you feel strongly I am being disruptive, then this might be the best way to resolve our differences of opinion over the archiving issue. Let me know if this is how you wish to proceed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not the only one who finds your methods disruptive (to say the least, as evidenced by discussions such as this one, this one, and this one). Your methods irritate the hell out of quite a lot of people, Gavin, and you never seem to change your ways. You refuse to let discussion end unless they reach your pre-decided resolution, even if a discussion sits with no comments at all for over seven months, and then again for over three months. Many people have tried to explain this to you, but you just don't seem to be able to grasp this point. Wikipedia is about consensus, not about making everything the way you want it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you suggest the name of an administrator who would be willing to mediate on this issue? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want mediation, I suggest contacting someone at either Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal (informal) or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (formal). As the issues is mainly you being unwilling to work with anyone else, and being unwilling to compromise under any circumstances. This issue doesn't need an admin to mediate, it needs you to learn to compromise and work well with others. Your steamrolling method of working here leaves all kinds of messes in its wake and drives people away from working here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I am quite happy to work with you and/or an mediator on this issue, and for your information I have requested mediation on the article talk page Talk:Dan Willis (author)#Archiving. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Blue Sonnet

If I remember correctly, you had the BYOND article deleted due to lack of notability. BYOND is a programming language, a community, and a set of engines for online-play. This is somehow less notible with more sources then your article somehow. However, your article, which you began Blue Sonnet provides no sources, nor history of said Anime/Manga. How can you let Blue Sonnet stay, yet have the BYOND article deleted? Which was obviously notable yet blue sonnet is not. --Undead Pancake (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you apparently misunderstand how the Articles for deletion system works. I merely processed the deletion discussion. I did not participate in it otherwise, so I certainly didn't have the article deleted due to any pressure on my part. Those who participated in the discussion came to that consensus, and I closed the discussion based on that consensus. If you believe it was deleted in error, feel free to bring it up for review. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I have done a procedural DRV here if you wish to participate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

small change to Template:WikiProject Japan

When you get a chance, could you change the two links for "quality scale" and "importance scale" to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment#Assessment scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment#Priority scale respectively? --TorsodogTalk 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've update both the Assessment page (renamed two sections) and the template so the links take you to the right place. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference library request

Could you please, when you've got the time, look up Dreamland Japan on Ryoko Yamagishi, especially on Hi Izuru Tokorono Tenshi? I just made that article and it seems that Schodt goes into some depth on it. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked it up, and there are about 2 1/2 pages of commentary on the manga. I'll scan them for you when I get home. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! :D --Malkinann (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It took slightly longer, but you can get the page scans here, here, and here. They will be up for 24 hours (or less, if you grab them before then). Please let me know as soon as you have them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Got them. :) --Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem user.

The anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been putting misinformation on several articles for several days and seemingly has the same MO as the vandal at (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I tried reporting guy on WP:AIV, but my latest attempts are futile, since I found the guy's edits long after he's gone. Can you do something against this guy? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If they do it again, let me know and I'll block them. I don't see any edits after your last warning. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my last warning (which was actually the second one) came over eight hours after his edits, which was way too late. And my first "last warning" didn't seem to affect the guy. Can you block him for an extended period of time at this moment instead of later? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Never mind; the IP has been blocked. I'll still keep watch on the pages where he has entered the misinformation and let you know if he does return, even in a different IP address. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Re:this edit of mine - is "ruins" a literal translation of the Japanese name? (No english source uses this as the name) If so, is there a way to indicate this without it appearing as if that's the title of the article? Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2009

That's what Ruins (, Ato) means. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, is it OK to refer to Matsushiro as a suburb of Nagano? From the sources, it appears to be a small mountain town which was eventually engufled by the city. Raul654 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my butting in, but as for 跡, see [1] and [2]. And a part of the site is used as this. 日本穣, see the 大本営予定地跡(だいほんえいよていちあと) section on this page. Oda Mari (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and that's what it means: "ruins" or "site". It's obviously not a "mark", a "track", or a "stain". I think "site" might be a better translation in this case, and I've made that change to the page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought...

Shouldn't Manga: The Complete Guide have some information on Four Shoujo Stories? --Malkinann (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Though Thompson didn't mention it in his interviews, he did mention another book as being the most difficult to procure... And he did go on about RoV as being his fave, which was released in 1981... So if he got his hands on copies of those, perhaps there's hope that Four Shoujo Stories is also included in the book. --Malkinann (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's in there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've scanned it for you here. It will be up for 24 hours (or less, if you grab it before then). Please let me know as soon as you have it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Got it. I've put it in the article, attempting to use {{cite book}} - is that the proper formatting and information? --Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I've squeezed out most of the juicy bits now, unless we care about the star rating - howzat? Also, thank you thank you thank you!!!!! :D --Malkinann (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting support

Hi Nihonjoe. Just to let you know, your support for autoformatting relates more to date linking, not autoformatting itself. Could you refocus your reasons for supporting and move your other comments to a support for year/Month/Day linking? Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You oppose it, so where I put my comments doesn't really make a difference. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. You should know that I only asked you to clarify this so that your argument had more weight. Personally, I would rather have a focused debate on autoformatting and be on the "losing" side. You shouldn't think that this is such a partisan issue.
The reason I opposed is because I think deprecation of the current system is absolutely necessary, and all out opposition is the only way to do this. Should a smart technical person devise a simple and amazing way to standardise dates across the board for every user, both in editing and viewing mode, then I'd be happy to have a vote to bring back autoformatting. It may sound odd, but I'm pretty sure that even if 100% said no to autoformatting in this RFC, if someone delivered a simple and flawless autoformatting system then we could bring it back just as easily. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did clarify things, and I finished posting to the other two discussions as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


How can you AfD when this exists: Radio ZET Let me know how to fix my wiki please, because this is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjava (talkcontribs) 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this article gets a pass. Besides, I didn't AfD it (and no one has at this point). I specifically stated that the article was not eligible for speedy deletion, so I don't understand why you are upset at me. Please refer to this set of pages for assistance in learning how to edit pages properly. This page will be especially useful as you are new to WIkipedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

I see that you deleted "List of Exalted comics". I am disappointed by your hasty, unconstructive response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to create the article again, I suggest creating it in your userspace (say, at User:Axl/List of Exalted comics) and then moving it to the mainspace once you have the article completed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be fair: Axl asked me for my input on this deletion/subsequent actions (as he knows me and knows that I am critical of a lot of actions by CSD'ers. I responded to his question on my talk page.) I mention it here to be fair, not to flame the fires as I think this is a case where we should move on...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I disagree somewhat with your position, but I agree that this needs to end now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


I am undoing your deletion of this page because the material was on Wikipedia prior to it being on this blog at Kamen Rider Kuuga. They are the ones violating copyright and not Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've explained myself in full at Talk:Grongi.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV of Madras Bulls

Hi, can I attempt to call your attention to the Madras Bulls DRV? There is a complication in that a page has now been created where this page will almost creatinly be recreated... You closed a DRV on the same page so I figured I would start here. Thanks. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please be sure to link to the discussion so I don't have to hunt it down. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shonen v. Shōnen

I appreciate your welcome Nihonjoe, I have read your response to my previous edits. In your response you suggested Japanese Manuals of Style, as I began to read the Manual, the first paragraph struck me. -

"The English Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia. An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese; that is, use Mount Fuji, Tokyo, jujutsu, and shogi, instead of Fuji-san, Tōkyō, jūjutsu, and shōgi. However, the romanized Japanese form should always be listed in the opening paragraph."

Given that this is a loan word, this seems to fully contradict the guidance I've appreciated from you, and I'm a little confused why the Shonen article contradicts this rule? The common English form of Shonen is Shonen, as you had also admitted in your reply. Could this all be an unpractical stylistic mistake by individuals on Wikipedia more partial to dialectic uniquities over conforming, accessible and educational usage of a term to the English speaking audience? Your guidance has been appreciated.

P.S. Is there any way to track analytic data on usage and page hits? If Shonen was found to be directly attempted access by individuals over Shōnen, would this also prove the nonconformity over the English speaking aggreeance and consensus of this word and the frivolous resistance by Wikipedia editors? Thanks for all of your help and clarity. TheNinthCut (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)TheNinthCut

The issue here is that there is no "most common" form. In academia, it's most common to use the macronned form (or variations of it), or the "word processor" version (shounen). If you read all of those discussions I linked to, you will see how we came to the decision. If you wish to continue discussing this, please do not do so here, but rather on the MOS talk page. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of MOS usage, the macron discussions in the MOS were not pertinent to our discussion. I am specifically addressing the usage of the Macron in "Shonen". Forgive me if you grow irritated. Although the points you make are heartfelt, given that you are very familiar with the MOS arguments and have graciously provided me links to documentation that was contradicting of your points, and given that you are one of the highest authorities on the subject. I am not entirely convinced that your points have been clear, therefore lower level discussion within the MOS would not be ratified. I am not entirely convinced of your arguments either. There seems to have been a pattern of checking the points you have made and they have increasingly directly contradicted your statements. "The issue here is that there is no "most common" form." for instance. I simply attempted to find justification of this argument but as I queried Google I found Shonen resulting close to 4 million times (3.7 million), Shounen represented 2 million times, and Shōnen 222 thousand times. This is contradictory to your statement. Are you positive that you are looking at this from a neutral standpoint. Until I am pointed to direct documentation or citation that justifies these points, there would be no reason for me to accept the points presented. Do you have citation or sources for the statement, "In academia, it's most common to use the macronned form" Again this is directly pertinent to the macron usage in the word Shonen. I am not biasedly opposed to macron usage in general, therefore the MOS discussions have not been a helpful source. Thanks for taking out the time to specifically discuss this with me, I am faithful that you are looking at this from an unbiased perspective, and that you find this to be an equally pressing issue and take as much care as I have to calmly review this. Your concern has been appreciated. TheNinthCut (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)TheNinthCut
I'm sorry, but I already made clear that this is not the place to discuss this. Please take it to WT:MOS-JA if you wish to argue about it. I will not respond further here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Page Blanking"?

Honestly, what the hell is that about? As I quite clearly noted, I removed the image based on it being illegal. Regardless, I've made a talk page post and will remove the image later on, and if there is an editor dispute on the matter then I will simply bring it up for official review because it is illegal. Also, please refrain from making incorrect summaries such as this in the future, as I did no such thing. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't bother reading the modified comment. And the image is not illegal. If you remove it again, you will be blocked for it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course I did. The fact remains that the original is blatently false. I have taken the issue of the image to the talk page, where it can be discussed by editors of any relevant views. I'll also ask you not to make threats like that, as it in uncalled for. If you really feel the need to block vandal acounts, then I'll direct you here. You are of course welcome to voice your own opinion on the matter of the image on the talk page. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I edited the original as it wasn't saying what I thought it would. Your removal of the image is against policy as the image does not violate any laws within the United States. Therefore, if you continue removing it, it is vandalism and you will be blocked for doing so. As you can see from talk page, I have opened a discussion over here regarding the legality of the image. Feel free to participate if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Minori Kimura

Updated DYK query On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minori Kimura, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Legality of Lolicon

I really need you to link a reference to, the article where it says that lolicon is legal in the United States of America. Thank You --Kopicz (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see it in writing, or in this matter print on the screen, that it is legal.
It would be much appreciated.
Thank You
--Bkopicz3 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, so looking for a quote of the law here is not going to get you anywhere. If you have questions, I suggest referring to the discussions here and here. There's not anything to say beyond what's there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Hilton page

Any thoughts about the inclusion of the material discussed on the Hilton talkpage? 13afuse (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been no change since the last time I looked at it, so my previous comments still stand. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Was the paragraph I wrote up in the discussion page giving Catholic reaction OK? You asked if there were any objections, but none appeared. I want to check that it's OK to add it to the article. 13afuse (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You should be asking at the article talk page, not here. If you don't receive any objections after a week or two, and as long as your edits very closely toe the line with the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, and Verifiablity policies, then you should be fine. However, you need to ask there, not here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Over 9000 pages?

I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw you update that... =D ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but most of them don't get updated all that often. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
That's good (depending on your point of view), even if each one only got 1 edit a day, that would still mean you'd have to check your watchlist at least 9 times a day to keep up! o_O ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority get edited less than once a month (or even less often!). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, that certainly helps too, then, doesn't it? =D ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Can you do something about this guy? Maybe lock his talk page or remove his account? As a double-verified, triple-banned indefinite, he is of no use to Wikipedia (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already indefinitely blocked. Just don't reply to his posts and you should be fine. He can't edit anything other than his talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over Anime years and seasons

You seem the ideal person to ask about this, hopefully you can provide some insight.

I've been working on List of Gin Tama episodes recently. The biggest edits in this context are regarding the season splits. Originally I split the series by a combination of end themes and where the show implied or outright said about change of season. However, after learning what the japanese dvd's covered, I switched the list to use that as the Season 2 and Season 3 dvds specifically label themselves with those in english. However, watching episode 75 (which comes halfway through the season 2 dvds), it talks about entering the second season of the second year, when surely it's season 3 of year 2? However, i'm limited to fansubs here, my japanese isn't good enough to work it out that way.

Is there a "standard" season length in japan officially (say for Tv guide purposes), or does it differ on a case by case basis? I'm under the impression that it was 13 weeks per season, but Gintama is implying that it has a a 26 calender week season (although it follows a 13 week end theme pattern). Any thoughts? For the ep list I'm going to follow the dvds until there is an english release as its the most official list, but I've never been able to determine what the standard is for Japan, if any!

Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the TV seasons in Japan are three months long. That gives you about 13 weeks or so, which is why so many series are that length. As for seasons for a specific series, that can vary widely. Sailor Moon has widely ranging season/series lengths, for example. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense, it's the discrepancy between the two that was confusing. After all, most of the time it's left to licensors or sometimes end themes to determine a season - usually for fans. Gintama is the only show I know of that specifically refers to seasons within itself, and seems to contradict itself by doing so! Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Public universities by location

Info talk.png

Category:Public universities by location, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Twinkle is retarded. I did not create that article (or any other Bleach article for that matter). I've never read or watched any Bleach. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I know...I thought it was weird it sent it to you. *scratching head* Though its history says you made the original redirect? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the same. Nihonjoe is clearly shown as the first editor Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a redirect a long time ago (probably for sorting into anime by specific years for categorization), but none of the current content was created by me. I did not create the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Twinkle could really distinguish between someone who created a page as a redirect versus someone who actually created it as an article (or who turned a redirect into an article later). At the least, it would still lead to notification issues. Perhaps the best behavior would be for Twinkle to notify both the original creator of the redirect and whoever turned it into an article? But that would still leave cases where the same title went through several iterations between redirect and article... Hmm. I'll probably open a bug report anyways. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just because I felt like it: Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-281 ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihon Ōdai Ichiran

Will you take a look at what I've pulled together at Primary source -- here?

What do you think? I wonder if you'd be willing to suggest how this analysis might be improved?

Perhaps you may want to argue that using Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is not helpful as a strategy for illustrating the differences among primary, secondary and tertiary sources? --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow admin!

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. Hope Dan Willis hasn't been giving you too much trouble. :)

In case you might be interested in editing other D&D-related subjects, we have had a GA-drive going all year. So far, we have met success with Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants. If you're interested in checking out what's going on, just swing by the D&D project's talk page.

If you also like comics (not so much the manga, sorry), there's a GA drive going on there as well. Happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Dan Willis has been great. It's Gavin.collins that's been causing the trouble. ;) Thanks for the invite to the others, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem! It's always good to have editors help out, even in small ways. BOZ (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


A few years ago, you deleted this thing. It was then recreated at Chemaxon (note different, incorrect capitalization). I moved that to the proper ChemAxon capitalization before realizing the deletion history here. New article is still tagged with the same problems! Feel free to redelete if it's still a hopeless case. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{db-advert}}. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

{{talkback|User talk:Dank55/Apr|ChemAxon}} More info - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel My Soul (Yui song)

Can you delete Feel My Soul (song) so I can move Feel My Soul (Yui song) to Feel My Soul (song). Per WP:MUSIC the song titles should be disambiguated when another song with the same name exist. There is no other song with the same name so I'm asking you since you created the redirect. Do you understand what I just wrote because I think I just made it confusing... lol. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 02:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. ~Moon~~Sunrise~ 03:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Japan Tokyo taskforce

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:WikiProject Japan Tokyo taskforce]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a project category, so please leave it alone. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
How bizarre. It was completely empty when I looked at it. Have you any idea how it got populated so suddenly? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Project categories can sometimes become empty, and then sometimes repopulate. It was likely something due to the modifications I was making to the project template. If it's a WIkiProject category, don't go tagging it without asking first because of reasons such as this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've been tagging unused project categories for about a year now, and this is the first time I can recall running into this situation. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works best for me, so I don't plan to switch to an ask-first policy. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, for any project categories, asking first is the best policy as you may not have any idea how the category is being used. I can see being bold with regular categories, but I strongly recommend not messing with project categories unless the project is dead. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've read your recommendation. Thanks, --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to ignore it (and it seems you are, based on how you worded your reply), please at least stay away from WikiProject Japan categories. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we'll have this exact same conversation every time, and have the exact same results every time. If there's a category the project no longer needs, I just delete it (usually because someone asks me to do it). Any categories that exist are ones we either are using currently, or will be using shortly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I should also note that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an essay, not a policy, and by the wording in the essay should generally be applied to articles, not categories. Categories are watched by a much smaller number of people, so that tactic is bound to be less effective unless your whole intent is to just boldly delete anything you don't know or care about. Now, that said, I applaud deleting categories that are outside the project space (meaning any category not used for project administration in some way) if those categories just aren't being used, but as I mentioned already, projects are regularly changing how things are categorized within their category structure, so you may happen upon categories which appear to be empty, but which may be so only temporarily. That's why I recommended that if a category is obviously part of a project (as was the case here), you should at least post to the project page and ask if the category is being used. We aren't on a timeline here, so this extra courtesy step will not hurt anything if you have to wait a day or two before taking any possible action. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Are you assuming that all I do is tag empty categories? If so, no wonder you see me as a nuisance to be driven away from WikiProject Japan. The fact is, I often make other sorts of contributions which might be of value to this or another WikiProject.

I agree that there's no rush to delete empty categories. When I tag an empty category, my intent is always to delete a category that is no longer in use and is therefore a hazard to humans navigating the category hierarchy. There is no shortage of these, and there is always a large backlog. I make a distinction (as does CSD policy) for project categories that are expected to be periodically emptied and refilled. I have plenty of experience in recognizing these, and rarely tag them.

While the category in question is a project category, it was not one covered by the "empty on occasion" exemption to WP:CSD#C1. You created it as a permanently populated category for pages connected with the task force. Because it had been empty for over a month without anybody doing anything about this fact, I mistakenly assumed that the task force had either been renamed or was never properly created in the first place. I was taken aback to learn of my drastic mistake, for which I apologize.

I understand that categories are rarely watchlisted; that's why I notified you on this talk page, as part of my standard procedure. In the case of project categories, I'll consider notifying on the project talk page as well. However, less than 10% of the categories I tag result in any discussion at all, and less than 1% result in the category being kept. I've even gotten complaints from category creators who feel I am spamming them with notices. I believe that 99% of the WikiProject categories I tag are of no interest to 99% of project participants. Placing such notices might prove to be a net detriment to the project.

Note that I never tagged this category for deletion. What I did was I gave you four days advance notice of my intent to tag it thus. This strikes me as extraordinary outreach on my part, given that, had the category been inadvertantly deleted, an experienced editor could've re-created in less than a minute. To urge that I put a notice in a second place and wait several days before tagging the category itself seems to me to deprecate the value of my time--two more steps in the process, another page on my watchlist, etc.

This is a process I've chosen do in my spare time. On average I do it many times a day, and 99% of the time all goes smoothly. Please pardon my reluctance to embrace your notion of how the category deletion should be handled. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. I'm not saying this is all you do here. I gave only a tiny instance of when I suggested that you be more careful. In this case, it was a simple case of me changing the project banner so it filled the category properly. It was one very small line (about 25 characters) in a 9K file which needed to be tweaked properly. I did that, the category filled, and all was good. As for whether you want to call your tagging "tagging for deletion" or not is a case of semantics. The tag you placed on it was a prod tag which would have resulted in its deletion within about four days. That's just tagging for delayed deletion, so it's pointless to argue wording on it.
All I'm saying is that for project categories only, you should be more careful and not assume the category is not being used. For other categories, you can continue on your merry way doing whatever you want, but please be careful of project categories. That's all I'm trying to get across. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Why did you move Karakuridôji Ultimo to Karakuridōji Ultimo. The first is the official English title, talk things out before moving. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the edit summary which explains it in full. I have reproduced the relevant part here: ô → ō per WP:MOS-JA. Hope that helps. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No that doesn't help. "Karakuridôji Ultimo" with the "ô", IS THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH VIZ MEDIA TITLE. That's what Viz chose, therefore we use it, HOWEVER if it wasn't published in English we would use the other title with the macron. I did read your edit summary. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Then take it to WT:MOS-ANIME to get more opinions on it. Just because Viz is retarded and uses an incorrect character doesn't mean we need to. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does! (to think an admin should know things like this) It doesn't matter if Viz is retarted or not, they spelled Fushigi Yûgi the same way, therefore we use the title they chose. – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
And don't tell me that you moved that one too... – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's been there for quite some time. Fushigi Yûgi was redirected to Fushigi Yugi in 2004, and then to Fushigi Yūgi in 2006 in order to avoid a double redirect (I did this last one). The Fushigi Yūgi article has been at the current title since July 2004. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No, he didn't, its been at the other name for awhile now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion has been started. Feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Karakuridôji Ultimo and "correcting" English names -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment request

Could I possibly trouble you for an assessment of Hamamatsu Chunagon Monogatari? I'd like to try DYK-ing it, and I'm unsure if it's high-Start or low-C. --Malkinann (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Minori Kimura

Hi, Nihonjo. Sorry I'm late in replying. Today is the first time I logged into Wikipedia in ages. You've done a good job. It's certainly better than the Japanese article, which, all too typically, is subjective and contains few references.

One major omission is the absence of anything about her work in recent years, which is unusual for focusing on social issues in a straightforward way, something mainstream publishers have a strong aversion to. She's an unapologetic feminist and is active outside the realm of manga. So although she's been very active, her work has gone mostly under the mainstream radar. Unfortunately, I don't have any concrete references I can offer off the top of my head, and I don't have time to go digging for them. It shouldn't be too hard to locate sources, though. Sorry I can't be of more help, but hopefully this will at least point you in a fruitful direction. Keep up the good work. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can find. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Genji Monogatari

I create the page of Genji Monogatari (manga). If you have a time, please expand the page.--Bukubku (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Are we arguing? I didn't think we were, but Kyaa, who hasn't edited in two weeks, reverted me on Fushigi Yugi claiming we were and that I was using it as an excuse to request we discuss the See Also instead of reverting, per BRD.[3] I tried to ask him why he felt we were arguing on his talk page, but he reverted my post as vandalism.[4]. So thoughts on this? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you in the past not to comment on my talk page, hence I feel that you commenting on my talk page is vandalism. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Then please don't comment on my edits or revert them, otherwise you are inviting interaction. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You may use the talk pages of the actual pages being editted for discussion of said pages. You do not need to go to my talk page for this interaction which you seem to be seeking. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently we are since you seem to think WP:SEEALSO somehow precludes the addition of "Ao no Fūin, a manga series based on the same set of legends" to the Fushigi Yūgi articles. After closely reviewing it, it seems to me it supports the addition rather than precluding it (see the part that states " including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, but seems to me a bigger issue to address first is whether Ao no Fūin is even notable. It certainly doesn't seem like it to me. The three "sources" it had were all non-RS and have been removed. I see you created the original article, but that it was back in 2007 which probably explains how that happened. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, seeing as you are a self-proclaimed deletionist, your judgement is suspect since you prefer deleting just about everything. I'll see if I can find some references that meet your insanely high "standards". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Disputed Islands

Hi Nihonjoe, Country names or codes are mandated for "Administered by", the bullet of the template. If it is left blank, a question mark (?) displayed with a small gray box. It looks ok but not really impressive. Can we have an option to fill it up with something else rather than country names, for instance the word "disputed"? Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to administer the disputed island. Is there one you found where someone isn't obviously in control of the place? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No, if it's referring to a physical administration. Yes, if an administration system has been appointed to govern an island before it taken away by forces, and that the governing body still functions virtually afterward. The continuity of the existence of such local government would lead the "Administered by" to a possible dispute/contradiction itself. Within the Wiki environment, I'd like to have a reasonable solution to challenge such cases. --Trinhbaongoc (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand how this infobox works. Unless two or more countries are actively engaged in a war on the island, one of them has administrative control over the island (meaning they control access to it, whether or not there are people living there). Such a country would be listed in that field. For example, South Korea administers the Liancourt Rocks, though both South Korea and Japan are in a dispute over who should control them. The same goes for Rockall, which is administered by the United Kingdom, but claimed by the UK, Denmark, and Iceland. Only one country can administer the island(s). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I understood clearly the current infobox purposes. I'm just exploring for another version of it and looking for a derivative of your infobox designed with some flexibilities. Your help is greatly appreciated.Trinhbaongoc (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to create on in a sandbox and then post a link. It may be possible to incorporate what you need into this one. However, I don't think it's wise to remove the requirement for who administers a particular disputed island as there will always be some who does. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that a consensus should be reached before making any change. Could you help to incorporate that into the current one? It would take me awhile to figure it out since I'm a hardware person. Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The requirement for "administered by" is not going to go away as it is always applicable. If you can spell out very clearly what you are wanting, I can look into it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
We just need to add one more applicable option to the existing requirement that is the word "Disputed". Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The name of the infobox contains "Disputed", so there's no need to be redundant. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I know Disputed is the name of the box. I think people may not notice the name much. The contents of the box are matter, which contains mixed data/info and not all of them are disputed. We don't use it when it becomes redundant. But in some cases, when we need to make a specific subject clearer, the box should also provide an option. That would make the box more powerful, wouldn't it?--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless the countries are engaged in open battle with each other, there is no dispute over who administers the island. One of them will have control, and the other will be protesting that control. There is no reason to add "Disputed" to "Administered by". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, it would help if you pointed out the article you want to use it in. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I got you but the reason was already presented earlier. Another solution is to replace "Administered by" with 'Seized by", which goes well with the name in some cases. I think I can make a version of yours with this simple change. How do I post a link? Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Seized by" is extremely point of view, and therefore can't be used. "Administered by" is neutral and merely states a fact about who is in control. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"Seized by" is a fact in disputed cases. If no "seized by" then there is no dispute. Whereas "Administered by" often comes with an internationally recognized status if it's an international matter, then there is no dispute. State of control is implicitly implied in "Seized by".--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Good luck trying to explain that to two or more sides in a debate where things get really heated (such as Liancourt Rocks, for example). The wording in the template was determined after a lot of input and debate in order to come up with wording least likely to inflame tempers on any side of a debate. "Adminstered by" is far more neutral-sounding than "Seized by". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking forward for such debate. Thanks for the history of the box. You might be correct but I'd like to have more options for some specific cases. You haven't told me how to post a link. Many thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Just put square brackets around the name of the article, like this: [[Liancourt Rocks]]. That will create a link like this: Liancourt Rocks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked a wrong question. I meant how publish a template for usage? Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured it out. Thanks for a nice and constructive discussion.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Creating {{Infobox Disputed Islands HS}} is completely unnecessary and only serves to introduce your apparent Vietnam POV into the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe you had an immature judgment. If you don't want me to make a version out of yours, simply say no. --Trinhbaongoc (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not that it was made out of something I made; I don't care about that as it happens regularly. There's no need, however, to create a new infobox simply because you want to use a different word in one part of it in order to push a particular POV. The current infobox is much more neutral using "Administered" rather than "Occupied", as already explained. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
to create a new infobox simply because you want to use a different word in one part of it in order to push a particular POV This made me think you had an immature judgment. See my reply Talk and question for you.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)