Jump to content

User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Archives

Movie studio vandal back again

This time he struck from 202.133.6.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And again as 125.161.180.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), although he was blocked for it. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Struck again at 120.29.156.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 20:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nihonjoe

I know you are a very good editor, that's why i would like to ask you a question: what do I have to do to publish changes/comments which I made (so that they will appear on the internet). Thanks for helping! RoboRay--RoboRay (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which changes or comments? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nihonjoe, for example, when you made a comment on an article page site, it appeared on the Internet. What do I have to do that my comment/change on an article page site will appear as well. I hope I was specific enough. Thank you (by the way, you are a great editor, really) RoboRay--RoboRay (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Which article are you trying to edit? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nihonjoe, thank you for your reply. I added Pucci's confession [that he is NOT credited with the capri pants] to the Capri Pants site. And I would like to publish the truth just as anonymous Pucci fans who are defaming the distinguished original designer of the capri pants, Sonja de Lennart. Thank you for helping.

[edit] Pucci Statement from March 4, 2009 I would like to cite a Pucci Statement from March 4, 2009 addressed to New York Times (Quote New York Times): "We finally heard back from Pucci representatives who in fact agree that Pucci is NOT credited with the capri pants." Sonja de Lennart, the most influential European designer after WWII, created the Capri Collection (Capri skirt, Capri blouse, Capri hat, Capri belt, Capri pants) 1945 - 1948.--Roboray (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you, Nihonjoe!--RoboRay (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ninjahoe, I'm puzzled! Why should I use somebody else's account?! WE have the letter from New York Times, nobody else does! Certainly not Chip. We did NOT ask you to take our word, we asked John how we should put a link to this DOCUMENT! There is nothing mysterious about this document, just tell me how we should do it to "link" this document to your site, or wherever you want it to be. "Mysterious" are only people who are using faked addresses like the defamors, who are using "spamXyahoo.com" as their "address"(this matter is now in the hands of European authorities, who are very tough when it comes to people who destroy people's reputation and work of a lifetime and exercise character assassination). You are one of the best editors (of what I read), but now you are taking sides with those who are defaming a distinguished, accomplished and established designer who happen to invent/design the Capri Collection while Pucci had his "black phase." That American historians made a mistake is NOT our problem. European historians can't believe that something like this (Pucci being credited with Sonja de Lennart's work) could happen in the first place. Therefore, I ask you kindly to be factual as you usually were and to let me know how I can get this document to you Thank you. RoboRay--RoboRay (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop with the personal attacks. Calling me "Ninjahoe" (in addition to being incorrect) will get you nowhere, and probably will make me less likely to want to help you out. I've replied over on the Talk:Sonja de Lennart page, so let's keep the conversation in one place, shall we? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies!

Dear Nihonjoe, I am so sorry! I didn't mean to attack you, to the contrary [in my language it means powerful, and that's how I consider your work and your Wikipedia page]. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive an old Professor who was so flustered because of the word 'mysterious'in regard to a legitimate document from New York Times that I even misspelled your name. Again, I apologize wholeheartedly. Yes, I will reply on the Talk: Sonja de Lennart page to keep the conversation in one place. Could you nevertheless be kind enough to give me answer to my recent/previous question? Thank you, Ray--RoboRay (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Which question? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, just a quick thanks for fixing up the disambiguation page for Gag :-)

Have an e-cookie on me! Thanks! Captain n00dle T/C 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Tasty! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, Nihonjoe. Just one line to tell you I didn't mean to offend or attack you yesterday, and I apologize wholeheartedly if I did. The last thing I want in life is to sound aggressive, but, being Italian, I often do. BTW, thanks for the help, the issue of Shitamachi being a false friend of downtown is one I care about.urashimataro (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have a friend who's half Italian and half Irish, so you can imagine the chaos that causes. :D ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

If possible can you delete the Diamond Wave page so I may move Diamond Wave (Mai Kuraki album) to the former. Since Diamond Wave (Mai Kuraki song) doesn't exist there is no reason for it to disambiguated. Also the album is the primary topic so if an article was ever to be made for the song it should be disambiguated as Diamond Wave (song). MS (Talk|Contributions) 21:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just moved the page for you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yamanote & Shitamachi

Do you think there's some way you can histmerge at least Talk:Yamanote into Talk:Yamanote and Shitamachi? Most of the discussion there concerns the new page location.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All the history merging is done now (for the article, too). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hold on. You've redirected my userspace version. I need that to prepare the material I was going to add. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just prepare it and add it to the article itself. If you do one or two items at a time, it shouldn't cause any alarm. You can also use the talk page of the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands & ja:南西諸島

Hello Nihonjoe, Genki-desuka?

The English Wikipedia's definition of Ryukyu Islands (in English) and the Japanese Wikipedia's definition of ja:南西諸島 (in Japanese) are equivalent.... not ja:琉球諸島 (in Japanese) which exclude the Amami Islands in Kagoshima.

However, user m:User:ChongDae and his User:Chobot changed the inter-wiki links across various language Wikipedias, which I believe was incorrect. Perhaps you should get a second opinion from somebody in the Japanese Wiki. But if you agree with me that the previous links were correct, please ask ChongDae to revert his Ryukyu edits. (Don't forget to sign in to the "meta Wiki" when you communicate with him). I already fixed the link in Ryukyu Islands, but the Japanese (and other) wiki still need to be fixed. I'm sorry, I really don't have time to follow up right now. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to adjust ours if the Japanese articles are different? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If you follow the Japanese articles word for word, Ryukyu Islands would be renamed Nansei Islands and we would have a separate small article for Ryukyu Islands. I've cited several sources in the naming section, trying to explain the differences between the English and the Japanese concepts. I know you may be busy, but please read the sources in the naming section.
Also, by inspecting the Japanese articles ja:南西諸島 and ja:琉球諸島, you will see that the English article Ryukyu Islands more closely describes the entire island chain ja:南西諸島.
But I see where ChongDae is coming from though. I see that the Korean definition of 琉球諸島 is identical with the Japanese definition, per Yahoo Korea definition.--Endroit (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

About your RfB

Hey Nihonjoe, just an FYI, while I opposed you during your RfB, I wanted to let you know that your RfB was the type that I have no doubt that should you run again (after gaining some experience in the crat related areas) that you should pass. The reasons for the opposes were not the type that dooms all future noms, it just says "not yet." If you want to see an RfB that essentially says, "screw you, you'll never become a 'crat" take a look at mine. Yours basically said, "Get some experience that people can see" in areas where 'crats work and you should have no problem.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Ruiz

Hi, they reason the article is a hoax is because: 1) he doesn't exist, as shown by a google search (at least not as a mixed martial artist), 2) if you look at his "record" it's claiming he's fought top competition every few days for major streches of time, which is impossible and 3) Strikeforce is an established MMA organization and he's certainly not their light-heavyweight, middleweight and "world" champion (a title which doesn't exist). As such, would it be possible for you to reconsider a G3? I'm not sure what else to tell you if a simple Google search doesn't convince you it's a hoax (or does doing research even factor in for G3s? How blatant does it have to be? I'd claim even the casual fan would realise this is not an actual person, but does it have to be so blatant everyone would immediatly realise it's a hoax? I'm asking to avoid bad nominations in the future). Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 04:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the information you provided and reviewing it with that in mind, I've speedied the article. If you can put more detailed reasoning into the tagging, that will make it easier to review the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try giving some more information on the talkpage or in a nulledit in the future. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agnitum

Dear Nihonjoe, - why speedy deletion for G7? Agnitum produces rather popular and PC security (anti-virus and firewall) software Outpost. It is reviewed since version 3.0 in 2006 year in PC Magazine, it is included into Virus Bulletin Security product vendors. Describing rather popular software company history in a few words for improving it by next contributors is not a G7 violation, I believe? Apologies if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit-ali-yan (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Vit-ali-yan (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The review by PC Magazine would be useful in establishing the notability of Outpost (though it would need at least 2-3 additional articles even for that), but it does nothing to establish the notability of the company itself. Being listed in the directory of product vendors for VBS does not help in the least for establishing notability. Please review WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS for more information on what needs to be done to establish the notability of the company. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so is it enough to provide link like that? Microsoft Windows XP SP2 Partners Quote Sheet. Talk to Vit-ali-yan 17:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No, because that's a press release. Press releases can't be used to establish notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How can we prove that we partner with Microsoft in another way? Is Matousec.com Proactive Security Software Testing enough to prove company's activity as social valuable? Or Microsoft advises like What You Should Know About the Blaster Worm and Its Variants. Vit-ali-yan (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop signing backwards (putting your signature first, and then your comments). There is no need for you to prove that you partner with Microsoft as partnering with Microsoft does not confer any degree of notability. Please (as I mentioned above) go read WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS for more information on what needs to be done to establish the notability of the company. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

TfD closure

Hi Nihonjoe, can you clarify the closing of the a/m debate. Besides the creator the template, there was only one conditional "keep". As the template was not modified, can you take this in account? There is a short discussion of the result on my talk page. -- User:Docu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you didn't bother to include a real signature that actually links to your talk page, I've made one for you (consider this a warning for being disruptive by not including a real signature even after being told to do so multiple times, including discussions at ANI and elsewhere—as a long time admin you should know better). The discussion, as I read it, indicated that people (all of them but you) didn't think the template should be deleted, but that it might need to be modified to include different text and maybe changes in or removal of the images. The creator of the template has just as much say as anyone else in the discussion, just as you, the nominator, have just as much say as anyone else in the discussion. Any discussion regarding content of the template should be taken to the talk page of the template. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The layout of his comments are a bit confusing, but most posts were by Sherurcij agreeing with himself. JPG-GR and BLACK FALCON questioned his reasoning. DGG and myself were the only other participants. It's clear that we can re-do any template to become any other template, but the listing is for this template on the day of nomination (or date of closure of the debate). -- User:Docu
Consider this a second warning for being disruptive by not including a real signature which links to your user page and/or talk page. As an admin, you know how things work here, and if you continue refusing to have a basic signature which conforms to WP:SIGNATURE, you're only inviting trouble. Your refusal to play nicely with others is very disruptive and impedes the smooth interaction required among editors on Wikipedia. This can be seen by the inordinately large number of people requesting that you fix your sig on your talk page.
As for the TfD closure, I explained why I closed it the way I did. I'm sorry it didn't close the way you thought it should close, but that happens sometimes. If you disagree with my closing, you are welcome to take it to WP:DRV, but I stand by the closure and my reasoning for the closure given above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your clarification. -- User:Docu

Just a note

I notice you're becoming more active on RFAs and RFA talk, perhaps a response to your latest RFB? This is good - it shows you are listening to the community, at least those who showed up to your RFB. Keep it up, and you will have my support for certain next time round. Beware though, don't overdo it (like I said in my original oppose, people may look at your posts as simply a way of "gearing up" for your next attempt). And also, be aware your fourth attempt will always look bad to some people, regardless of your merit. So I would wait even longer than the usual required time. It's ridiculously difficult for sure, but if you really want the job, I'm sure you'll be patient enough. All the best, Majorly talk 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there will be people who will oppose no matter what, and no matter how weak their reasoning is (I can think of a couple of them off the top of my head). I'm just participating where I see something that catches my eye, and I don't plan on making another run for a while yet. Thanks for the comments, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed... which is why I made my note above as well... also, don't forget to visit the other crat areas if you want to pass on your 4th attempt.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done that, though I don't really have much to do there as any non-bureaucrat work is handled to swiftly for me to assist. Thanks for the comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I know the feeling... but just make a few comments here and there... enough that people know you're present. Part of the problem I had when you ran was you said that you watched the pages, but you NEVER commented, which said "Either he doesn't watch and he's lying OR he watches but he finds the subject so boring he doesn't have anything to add." Either way, it didn't sit well... Majorly knows that I watch his page... I don't post often there, but I do interject in odd conversations. I know that my page is on his watch list for the same reason.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

I noticed you had not yet notified the users you mentioned at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct that they are mentioned in this WP:RFC/U. I have placed a brief, neutrally worded notice at their user talk pages, informing them that they have been mentioned at this page. I hope that is alright with you. Do you know of any other users that should be notified? Cirt (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting to that, but got distracted by something else. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't know that anyone else needs to be notified. I posted notes on WP:AN and WP:ANI due to the multiple times the issue has been brought up there. I assume anyone else who is interested will notice and come on over to see what the ruckus is about. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I did not realize you had posted notes there. Sounds good, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
And I've notified you now, too. Just to be thorough and all. ;) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives.com page Deletion

I would like for you to revisit the deletion of this particular page. The person starting it gave ample reason for it to be here as well as documentation of the claims he made. Wikipedia does indeed host pages for smaller websites with just as much reason for their existence. It doesn't appear that there was much actual "discussion"before deletion. ‎

(A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The above was cited for the deletion but the response was ignored and deletion was the result.

"Perspectives.com, as the article states, is the largest multi-party US political debate forum on the net. Source: http://www.big-boards.com/kw/politics/ As you see, we're ranked #14, however, sites such as Democratic Underground (which is on wiki) is only 5 slots higher than Pespectives.com. Most political messageboards are right-wing, left-wing, or some other slant. Perspectives, after years of fine tuning how to moderate effectively, a place full of people of dislike for one another, have become something rarely seen on the web. All sides are welcomed. Because of that perspectives.com is #1 in this category.

Also, I wanted to include perspectives.com in wikipedia's Political Forums categorty here: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_forums]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_forums[/url]

There is a site listed there (and accepted on wikipedia), "FreeDominion". They have about 1/4 of the posts perspectives.com does, their Google page rank is lower than perspectives.com as well.

Perspectives.com # of posts: 4,181,827. Source: http://www.big-boards.com/kw/politics/ FreeDominion.ca # of posts: 1,135,387. Source: http://www.big-boards.com/highlight/1755/

I hope deletion does not occur, as I've shown, it deserves to be here, especially when other sites, with web traffic not even close to perspectives.com gets to stay."

The above was the response of the original page author. It was not responded to at all. Perhaps if you were to view it again and offer direction or clarification as to what we need to have the page listed here we could resolve this issue. Thanks in advance for your further consideration.Jeffronomicon (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Size of a message board does not matter when it comes to notability, and neither does ranking or number of posts. In order to have an article, it would need to meet the requirements of the notability guidelines by having multiple independent, third party, reliable sources specifically discussing the site (passing mentions do not count). If you can show this notability with reliable sources, I'll be happy to revisit it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.Jeffronomicon (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FusionDesign

Hiya. I see you refused the speedy on this article. The reason I nominated it as A7 was because it had been deleted as that most recently. It has also been deleted as advertising. Obviously I cannot see what the deleted pages looked like, so cannot tell if there has been more of an effort to make it more notable, but it did seem like advertising and failing to show notability. Anyway, I'll leave it in your capable hands. Quantpole (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I agree and have deleted and salted it (this is the third creation and deletion cycle). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tae Bo

Ahem, I think you might've failed to carry out due dilligence on this one? Flowerparty☀ 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look like blatant advertising to me. Plenty of stuff on google news and the article was over 5 years old. I think we should restore it. Flowerparty☀ 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The article was a blatant advert for Billy Blanks. Most of the article was about Blanks, his videos, and his bootcamp. If someone wants to make an article about the actual sport, that's fine, but the article that was deleted was a spamfest. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a great article but it clearly deserves to be here, there's an abundance of sources to back up Blanks claim [1] [2]. This isn't a valid speedy. Flowerparty☀ 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The content in the article made it a valid speedy as nothing you listed above was in the article. I'm fine with restoring it if you want to fix it so it's no longer a spamfest in disguise, though. I dispute that it wasn't a valid speedy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that it didn't cite any sources, csd a7 says: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." We can't just can't just go round obliterating articles that aren't perfect, there'd be nothing left. Please restore, I'll happily add a couple of sources. Flowerparty☀ 03:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see any claims of importance in the article, so perhaps I'm just reading it differently than you. It's been restored for several minutes now, so have at it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I should also note that I don't just delete things willy-nilly as I regularly decline to delete articles which I believe don't meet the requirements of CSD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll see what I can do. And no worries, happens to the best of us. see you round! Flowerparty☀ 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I meant to cite the relevant caveat for g11, but you get the idea :) Flowerparty☀ 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Windward studios

Hi there Joe, would you mind if I restored this article you deleted? The article made several claims of importance and significance and thus was not eligible for A7. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it and tagged it with several cleanup tags. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I performed the cleanup and highlighted the sources and notability claims. Regards SoWhy 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

Just FYI your signature is not legible on my 12" notebook, the part that says "Talk to Nihonjoe". It's just too small at normal resolution and I had to increase font size like people with vision deficits do. (The Japanese characters are legible but meaningless to most English speakers.) My guess is you use a large monitor. Drawn Some (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have no problem viewing it on a 12", 13", 15" or 17" laptop. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The new & improved version is much more legible. Thank you. I can't help but think I'm not the only one who had trouble reading it; the screen resolution on my notebook is 1024 x 768 if that makes any difference. Thanks again. Drawn Some (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unity University

You deleted Unity University on a G12 claim which was incorrectly applied. I found that only a very small portion of the article contained COPYVIO and removed the offending section when I rejected the CSD:G12. I believe it was improprietous for the article to be re-tagged for G8 afterward, as it was for the article to be deleted without confirming the COPYVIO, checking for the previous G8 rejection, or recognizing my related discussion challenging the G8 on the article's talk page. —  X  S  G  08:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Improprietous" is not a word. As for whether it was incorrect or not, two other admins (Anthony.bradbury and UninvitedCompany) found it to be a copyvio and deleted as well, though you never mentioned your concerns to them as far as I can tell. When I reviewed it, it was clearly a copyvio with perhaps a few words here and there which weren't outright taken from the university's own site. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know what I meant by "improprietous", which, you're right, doesn't appear to be in the dictionary. Yes, I think that the other admins spent just as much time as you did reviewing how much of the article was actually a COPYVIO. Thing is, after I removed the part of the article that was COPYVIO, leaving about 90% of the article intact, you removed the article anyway. I don't really care about the article, per se; I do care about editors improperly using CSD tags and admins letting them get away with it. —  X  S  G  22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
When I reviewed the article, I found the overwhelming majority to be a copyvio. Perhaps you edited the page while I was reviewing it and the apparent source of the content, but regardless, the article was deleted for a third time after I deleted it for the second time. No one is letting anyone get away with something. If you want to work up a non-copyvio version of the article in your userspace, I'll be happy to review it prior to it being moved to the mainspace. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User groups

Except for abusefilter-editor, you have automatically those rights since you're an admin. You needn't to assign them to yourself, it's redundant for Special:Listusers and statistics. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more fun that way. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Veritee

why did you close the article the debate is not closed --Netquantum (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

please restore the veritee article the debate is not close and the article is not suitable for deletes please give comments --Netquantum (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate is closed as I closed it. It was very clearly a delete. If you want to get more opinions on the matter, feel free to bring it to WP:DRV, but I don't think it will change the outcome. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaze no Naka no Shoujo Kinpatsu no Jeanie listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kaze no Naka no Shoujo Kinpatsu no Jeanie. Since you had some involvement with the Kaze no Naka no Shoujo Kinpatsu no Jeanie redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bank Associates Merchant Services

Hello, I am the creator of the recently deleted page: Bank Associate Merchant Services. I would like to know what kind of information is needed for a company to be regarded as wikipedia worthy? Would proof of registration be good enough? Thank You. DrewBams (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It would need to meet the requirements at WP:CORP, and have the reliable, third party sources to verify it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the existing rationale on the page as you keep using templates to communicate. A fair use rationale for this specific use is located on the image page itself. I've edited it to make it glaringly obvious. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You did not address my dispute with the image, in that there is no critical commentary provided for the book for the image to be considered fair use. Also, I find the action of changing the fair-use license to an incorrect one to try and get around the dispute to be a shocking action for an administrator to take. Just as a forewarning, I plan on adding this to FfD, since my disputed concern was deleted without being addressed. Aspects (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I did specifically address it, and I specifically changed the license tag to make it more clear how it was being used in the article. The license I changed it to was not incorrect as it was used because the book -specific license did not apply in this case. There's nothing shocking about it. I replied at IfD/FfD showing how the image use meets every one of the policy requirements. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:When Agnes Lum Was Here cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Thomas C. Patterson

A heads up that I declined the speedy deletion tag on this article, as the subject was a Arizona state senator. It's enough to get it past the speedy criteria, but you could still consider a PROD or AfD. TNXMan 23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


{{Japan-food-stub}}

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.--Jeremy (blah blah) 07:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Akemi Loli Mokoto's unblock request

There's a related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sanity check; as you'll see I originally blocked mostly per WP:USERNAME but had reblocked as a sock before I noticed they'd got an unblock request in. The puppetmaster account is Saikano (talk · contribs), and the socks caught so far are listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Saikano and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Saikano. Hope this helps. EyeSerenetalk 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Peace offering

Thank you for the visit and noble peace offering. Whilst editing music articles, I got to know that the article of Diapason (magazine) was deleted by you perhaps due to a failure of sourcing unable to meet the notability criteria. I was considering asking you to undelete since the French classical music magazine has archived its notability comparable to the British Gramophone (magazine). Given the acclaimed classical award, Diapason d'Or and some sources[3][4], I think you easily can be persuaded to undelete it. However, well I was very hesitant to do so for the reason that you came to me. So I highly appreciate your amicable approach to me for reconciliation. I hope we can agree that "past is just past" and someday we can work together. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Caspian blue/Diapason (magazine) so you can work on it and bring it up to snuff before it's placed in the mainspace. This is to prevent it from being speedy deleted again. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is indeed very poorly written, but it is worthwhile to be here. Best regards.--Caspian blue 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if you need any help moving it back into mainspace (since it will be over a redirect). Sometimes the system doesn't like that, and you may need an admin to do it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

Just a note without specific names mentioned. I made a report to WP:UAA regarding a new username. It only came to my attention because the user made immediate, and in one case, extensive edits to specific pages that I watch now because of issues related to a persistent and determined sock master who was finally outed and blocked. I felt the username was possibly a problem, and I'm not certain that it still isn't. It isn't always because a name implies a connection to a company, although I understood that such commercial name references still aren't permitted even if there is no evidence of editing on behalf of the company. Perhaps in this case, it could mean that it is a company that provides public internet access. In any case, I'm not asserting this new user is the same person, but it is suspicious and I have added the name to my watchlist because of the myriad of problems from the sock. I'm not telling you this for any reason other than to notify you regarding the possibility. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this regarding the one you reported today? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is, and I see you've dealt with the username. Regardless, I do expect the person related to the sock to come back. I do think this was the person, FWIW. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Since you're watching the articles in question, feel free to let me know specifically if you notice the editor coming back. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The sock has been tagged so it will show up in the category listing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I will continue to keep an eye on similar accounts popping up. I was never surprised that this would happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The interesting thing about that editor is that he/she used specific accounts to edit specific articles and only accidentally tripped up when one username responded to talk post that was with another username. I did notice the account Ashleerocks contributions pop up and begin to edit the same articles that were edited by the confirmed sock Xxtinadbest contributions, including various Eurovision articles, Kým nás máš, Britney Spears discography, Saturdays songs, and what brought it to my attention, repeated efforts to insert unreleased discography information into Hayden Panettiere. I had left a note at the User talk:Ashleerocks page addressing the more than too much coincidence [5] but received no response and the editor continued. I'm fairly certain this is another sock and I'd cite WP:DUCK if I were making a new sock case. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk)
After reviewing the account, I agree that it's a sock and have therefore blocked it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Honestly, I don't go looking for socks, but it seems like once you've been here for a while, you can't help but come across them. Much appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Interaction

Hello! Regarding your message, please consider these edits [6] [7] [8] and compare the related contribs. Also, this quick reaction may be explained with experience. Maybe you can understand my lack of patience towards this new user now? -- Matthead  Discuß   11:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of that, you shouldn't stoop to his level and fly off the handle. Just because someone else is uncivil doesn't mean you get a free pass. That's all I'm trying to get across to you. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you think they are likely the same person (Sennen goroshi is living in Japan according to his user page, and the two IPs resolve to the same ISP in Japan), then gather up all the evidence you have and we can go from there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, what can I say? I am not a Checkuser or something, and I am not inclined to start an official request on my own, just to get lectured about AGF and don't bite the newcomers or something. Yes, I think Sennen goroshi and the two Tokyo-based IPs are operated by same person, even though that is a big city with a lot of inhabitants, of which many are from abroad. I had encountered Sennen on Talk:Nürburgring lap times, an article on a German race track, and the lap times recorded there, in racing events since 1927, by the magazine Sport auto (Germany) since 1995, and by various sources in recent years. Due to the internet, other media, computer games, and US and Japanese manufacturers publishing lap times of their sportscars, this track has attracted some international attention in recent years - and a lot of fans who support their favourite car. After a dispute about the reliability, credibility and significance of sources, I had suggested to split off List of Nordschleife lap times (racing) and List of Nordschleife lap times (sport auto). After initial opposition, it was him who copied times to the sport auto article in April 2009. In the same month he stopped contributing, while in May, 61.23.81.111 showed up, to be succeed by 119.173.81.176, with both IPs making their first edit Talk:Nürburgring lap times. Coincidence? Well, after the block of the 119-IP expired, he had nothing better to do than messing with Sport auto (Germany), an article barely edited by others. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, if you have the proof or at least incredibly good circumstantial evidence (especially with two IPs from the same place), then all the good faith has been used up and we can look into this further. If you want to collect data which may show this connection, do so and then pass it along to me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Circumstantial evidence should be in the edits by the IPs, which aren't that many (13 by 61., some 46 by 119.) compared to those of Sennen. For a non-racing related example, he changed a redirect to some lesser known music group [9], as did 119 [10]. When reverted, both insisted on it [11] [12]. I don't know whether this is incredibly good or proof of anything. What exactly is required?-- Matthead  Discuß   03:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
While those are similar edits, they are pretty much unrelated as they are different articles/redirects. If you can show where the IPs and Sennen were doing the same things to the same articles, that could be used to further investigate the issue. That's why I suggested keeping some sort of log (just create a text file with diff URLs), and when you get a good number of them (perhaps 6-10), then post them here and I'll look into it for you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Company deletion

Hi. In regards to deletion of IDModeling I had made suggested changes per Wikipedia editors and it has been deleted with no notation other than what was previously noted. Can you please clarify reasons for deletion? Jeb69 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As indicated when it was deleted (both times), the article was "about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Please see WP:CORP and WP:RS for more details on what is required for a company to have an article about them on Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Monkey Typhoon

Can you look in Newtype USA Issue 2 (DEC 2002) page 47 for info on Monkey Typhoon aka Asobotto Senki Goku? Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of moving, so it may be a while. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

T-shirt

I believe that you haven't yet gotten one of these. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You said something on my talk page a week ago.

Last week you raised a concern about my username. [13] The reason I want this username is because the IP it refers to is often blocked, and sometimes I'd like to edit from there. My username reflects that. I looked at the username policy and I didn't see anything about usernames resembling IP addresses, so would there be an easier way to solve this? -38.116.202.144temp 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your user talk. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicer

I think you need to be nicer to me. Pzrmd (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How am I not being nice to you? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
please read wp:civ. Pzrmd (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read it many times. Exactly how am I not being civil? If you're going to come here and accuse me of not being nice to you, you need to provide some evidence that backs up your claim. As far as I can tell, the only interaction I've had with you is the RFC/U on Docu, and I've been civil to everyone there, including you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
you're not being nice again. Pzrmd (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If you aren't going to provide any sort of example of how I'm not being nice to you, then this conversation is over. I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding to vacuous statements. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
hey, I supported your RfB. Pzrmd (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see here where Joe has been incivil to you, and the fact that you supported his RfB really has no bearing on the matter. Please either present a specific instance of Joe's incivility towards you, or drop the matter. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
you need to be nicer too. why am I the only civil person in this RfC? Pzrmd (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am quite nice. However, this seemed to call for conciseness, not bending over backwards to guarantee that I didn't come off as snippy. And this isn't an RfC (or are you referring to something else?); it's simply a discussion on a user talk page. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The RFC/U in question is this one. Apparently I've been mean there to Pzrmd, though I still haven't figured out where. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
stop trolling, Nihonjoe. Pzrmd (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting out of hand. If you don't have anything productive to say, please stop harassing me. I'm more than willing to address specific concerns, but all you're doing is throwing out vague "you need to be nicer to me" comments without any evidence to back it up. If you don't stop, this issue is going to be escalated. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I wasn't even serious, as I think you could tell. Pzrmd (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, there was no indication that you were anything but serious; and in any case, this isn't how you should joke around with other editors (for starters, generally you shouldn't randomly start a joke thread on the talk page of an editor who you've had little prior interaction with). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_41&oldid=1217325534"