User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archives: 1·2·3·4·5·6·7·8·9·10·11·12·13·14·15·16·17·18·19·20·21·22·23·24·25·26·27·28·29·30·31·32········

Contents

Newtype USA check

Hey I saw that you have the November 2002 issue of Newtype USA in the magazine archive. If you have time, could you please check if the article here is the same as the one in the magazine? Thank you -Rezumop (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It might be a couple days, but I can do that. I'll have to go find it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, took a little longer than a couple days. Yes, the content of that webpage and the article in the magazine are the same. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Rezumop (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed or repaired 16 redlinks in the manga article

Mostly by simply removing the redlink -- not the item, just the redlink! -- to a number of manga titles (not authors!) that I felt were by themselves insufficiently notable to deserve their own personal article. The title I of course left, but no more redlinking. Several of these titles are included in the artist's own article, which is how it should be. A couple were names given in Japanese order where their Wiki article gave them in American order. The redlinks that remain are artists, and many deserve their own articles/stubs. I listed them all on the manga talk page. We're getting there. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for advice

Hi Nihonjoe. I'm was looking for a Japanese speaking contributor whose judgment I trust and your name came top of the list. I presume from your participation in the recent Steward election [1] that you have a passing familiarity with Aphaia (talk · contribs), a meta sysop who is banned on the Japanese Wikipedia. The matter of her ban is rather central to whether or not I am prepared to support her reconfirmation as a meta admin. Various users whose judgment I trust seem to dismiss the Japanese Wikipedia ban as unreasonable but I find it hard to accept that an entire project could be so dramatically misjudged a person. I would be very grateful if you, as someone who understands the language, could give me an opinion of whether Aphaia has been given a fair hearing on the Japanese Wikipedia and whether her ban there is in your opinion a reasonable response to her conduct there. I realise that's quite a bit to ask, so feel free to say no, but I couldn't think of how else to get an impression of how fair her treatment there had been. WjBscribe 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember, the ban seemed a little reactionary, though Aphaia does have some responsibility as well. In general, I think Aphaia is a good contributor, and has learned from her experience on JAWP. I would trust her as a meta admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation/ONE

In a sense, this request for assistance is a sham because I expect you to achieve little. I don't know what can be done -- nor have I any ideas about should be done. Nevertheless, I'm formally asking for one or more Administrators to intervene constructively in resolving an intractable dispute arising from Kōryū-ji. Mediation focused on this stub will be ineffective, costing too much and achieving little in terms of whatever it is that this is "really" all about. Frankly, I doubt that anyone could get to the bottom of this, but I don't care. All I know is that the serial harassment campaign has to stop.

As far as I can tell, the fact of the matter is that User:Bueller 007 only became interested in this subject as a contemptuous consequence of tearing apart my work at Hōkō-ji, but that doesn't really matter any more. My patience is now over-stretched:

  • (cur) (last) 02:00, 18 January 2008 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (1,007 bytes) (and the added references (which, of course were DUPLICATES, just for good measure) are now no longer being used in the article) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 01:59, 18 January 2008 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (1,704 bytes) (this might be difficult for some people to understand, but the section that has been added IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 18:38, 29 December 2007 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (2,797 bytes) (retoring relevant text, in-line citations and bibliographic source notes which were wrongly deleted) (undo)
----
  • (cur) (last) 23:52, 28 December 2007 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (978 bytes) (→References - adding categories -- "Buddhism in Japan" and "Shingon Buddhism") (undo)
----
  • (cur) (last) 07:03, 10 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (866 bytes) (removing irrelevant history. something like "it was here that prince nakanooe shaved his head in 645" might be passable, but a whole mostly irrelevant section is certainly not needed) (undo)

The ultimate foundation of this dispute has a genesis elsewhere. I don't know where or why I've managed to capture Bueller's unwelcome attention, but I've had more than enough of it.

My hardened perspective is informed by what you can see for yourself in a quick scan of the edit history of Daijō-kan:

  • (cur) (last) 10:10, 21 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (35,637 bytes) (→II. Ministry of Civil Services - readding #47 & #48 as a reminder to clean up this silly plagiarized numbering system) (undo) [emphasis added]
  • (cur) (last) 08:33, 21 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (35,947 bytes) (→Council of State - if you're basically just going to plagiarize this french reference word for word and point for point, at least try to get the kanji & transliterations right) (undo) [emphasis added]

The words "silly" and "plagiarize" are not consistent with any subterfuge about constructive critical observations from a colleague whose only goal is to improve the quality of Wikipedia. This is nakedly objectionable. Moreover, these attacks appear to have no other motivation that the pleasure Bueller derives from being cleverly derisive.

My several efforts to respond reasonably in talk page venues have been entirely unsuccessful. That having been said: Now is the time for Bueller to start barking up some other tree. I'm cutting no more slack for this intemperate annoyance. NoI should I have wasted time and thought in the forbearance I've exhibited thus far ....

Bluntly, Bueller has over-reached. I do not need to tolerate gratuitous abuse across a range of subjects; and this Bad Faith campaign won't profit further from my continuing meek participation. I've not been satisfied with the efficacy of my strategy in responding to criticism in the past. Clearly, a moderate rejoinder is clearly insufficient in this instance. What else did should I have done?

Nihonjoe -- In anticipation that this awkward complaint will be beyond your ability to handle, I'm posting a duplicate of this message in as many locations as I can imaging. Perhaps in conjunction with your peers, you will be able to achieve what is likely to be beyond what you can achieve acting alone.

What can anyone do? I don't even know how to categorize this whatever-it-is. But just because I can't parse this into nice cubby-hole categories doesn't mean that it needs to continue:

  • ISSUE #1: Strategy seemingly focused on me for who-knows-what-reason ...?
  • ISSUE #1: Disruptive edits without engaging in discussion ...?
  • ISSUE #2: Hidden edits which escape watchlist detection ...?
  • ISSUE #2: Irrelevant contemputous comments based on who-knows-what ...?

At worst, this is a good start. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What I know for certain is this: While it takes mere minutes for User:Bueller 007 to delete my work, it takes a much longer time to prepare a thoughtful response, to repair the damage from unjustified deletes, and to find my way to this venue. That's not good.
As far as I can see, Beuller007 hasn't engaged in any dialog with you over this, but has only edit warred without any attempt to discuss the issue. The same is true on your side until today. Please discuss the issue on the talk page to try to come to an amicable agreement first. If, after several days and diligent effort to discuss the issue, no agreement can be reached, please let me know and we'll go from there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Who's kidding who? I've already spent hours on this -- wasted hours. Not worth the trouble. There is a place for investing in cooperative discussion; and this is not that place. I have already demonstrated a willingness to participate in that exchange of views ad nauseam with Bueller. But now I'm saying enough is enough.
NO. A failure of good will is demonstrated by User:Bueller 007's actions over a span of months -- not only in this trivial context. If there is any remaining question in your mind, the use of the word "plagiarize" should have been clear enough -- no good will can be wrung from this.
NO. I will tolerate no further derisive comments, no gratuitous insulting remarks, nothing more which is in any fashion undignified, courteous, reasonable. NO. I've had quite enough -- too much, as a matter of fact.
NO. I will tolerate no further groundless deletions from Bueller. Why should I do otherwise? He suffers no consequences whatsoever from what has become an inflamatory strategy; and in this context, you urge me work harder to build consensus. One wonders why you aren't embarrassed.
When I first attempted to make contributions to Wikipedia, I encountered a tedious, drawn-out series of groundless complaints based entirely on the fact that the source from which I was adding citations. Even when I prepared an article explaining more about Nihon Odai Ichiran, the dispute continued apace because my critics couldn't be bothered to read it. What I learned from that exchange -- and this one -- is that I was too patient, too conciliatory. If I should have taken away a different lesson, that is for someone else to explain. You perhaps?
In other discussion contexts -- discussions in which you have participated, I have readily demonstrated a capacity to accept my mistakes when I was shown to be simply wrong. This is different. I have already spent too much time in such fruitless exercises with ill-tempered editors like Bueller; and I see no reason to invest more. To what end?
This kind of vacuous feedback is unwelcome because it disadvantages me unduly. That kind of gambit might be conventionally appropriate, but not here -- not in this specific case. No, as it happens, I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired .... (an eternally useful phrase). I will not twist in the wind, blown hither-thither at the whim of who-knows-who over issues which are ultimately beyond anyone's ability to comprehend, much less resolve.
I've amply demonstrated that I am glad to engage in specific, serious, constructive discussion; but I see no reason to invest any further hours suffering the emotional whims of those who remain unwilling to be either specific, serious or constructive. What are you going to do to help me devote my time effectively in the coming months? If not you, to whom should I turn for a better strategy?
This latest foolishness with Bueller has resulted in my givings him the close attention he dearly wants; and I'm sorry to have gratifed his deepest desires in this way. However, I'm not inclined to repeat the mistakes of 2007 in 2008. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, you came here and asked for my opinion. As far as I can tell, you haven't done anything until today to try to resolve this dispute (I'm only talking about this one, not any others), and as far as I can tell, you haven't tried to engage Bueller007 (until today) in any sort of dialog regarding his edits outside of tossing remarks back and forth via edit summaries as you edit warred on the article. Neither one of you is assuming good faith by constantly reverting each other's edits without first discussing things on the talk page. I can see one set of reverts, but when he reverted your edits for the second time, you should have immediately taken things to the article talk page or his talk page (yes, he should have done the same when you first reverted him, too). Giving long diatribes about how you are the only one being wronged here isn't helping things at all.
In order to accomplish anything here, you're going to have to learn to work with people who may not be immediately or apparently amiable, or who may be outright caustic in all their dealings with everyone. I've certainly run into several like that in my time here, and while I generally try to be nice to everyone here, I've had the occasional bad day where I've gotten off on the wrong foot with someone. However, I've had to do my best to work things out, and in several cases I've become friends with those who initially did nothing but get under my skin. Dealing with people online is very difficult as many of the cues you get in real life are not there (facial and body expressions, tone of voice, etc.) That's why WP:AGF is so important.
Yes, it may be difficult, but you really do need to try to work things out first between the two of you before you can expect someone else to jump into the middle of things. If you can't get any sort of response from Beuller007 after a week or so, then let me know and we can go from there. Until then, please do your best to try to find the source of the issue between you, and then try to resolve it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation/TWO

Re-visiting the concept of "working it out together"
In the first paragraph of "Mediation/ONE" above, I wrote: "All I know is that the serial harassment campaign has to stop." I want to modify that statement by adding: "I may not be able to affect what others do, but I can change the way in which I react, respond, reply. I'm disatisfied with my 2007 strategies, and I need to develop better ones in 2008."

To my regret, you would seen to construe my reasonable questions as mere "whinging."

You suggest that I should have expressed myself on the associated talk pages. I did just that with what now seems to have been an excess of extended "good faith" reasonableness -- but that timely effort was an investment which produced no effect:

My attitude changed markedly when I encountered the word plagiarism. There is one and only one reason for anyone to have used that word in any context having to do with anything I have posted. The fact of the matter is that an over-abundance of in-line citations characterizes each and every contribution I have made. Bueller was trying to provoke me, and I continued to exercise restraint until I encountered this newest Kōryū-ji gambit. As far as I can tell, Bueller's edits have been naught but a deliberate attempt to be offensive and I am offended. No, it's more than that: I'm provoked -- well and truly aroused.

The time for calming the waters has passed; and I'm persuaded that Bueller's ill-tempered display has only gotten worse in the face of my patient restraint. Moreover, I'm beginning to think that I myself played a part in making this worse precisely because of what I mistakenly considered to have been a more mature, low-key stance:

Your response implies an assumption -- the mistaken assumption that I was asking you to do something; and as I re-read what I myself wrote, I did encourage that view. Let's begin anew: What if I were asking for good counsel from someone who presumably understands this venue better than me? The several pages which ostensibly provide a venue for asking for help in dealing with difficult editors all explain me that a priori I must ask for help from an Administrator in addressing an informed, but undesirable point-of-view: Bueller ≠ Good Faith ....

The current detour into questions about intra-personal relations in a Wikipedia environment becomes a question about how I can contribute to making Wikipedia better in 2008 (without increasing my costs).

I reject entirely the notion that I need tolerate any further pointlessly offensive attacks which have no other purpose than to be offensive. Your personal equanimity may permit you to make a different choice than I am making here; and, indeed, I would continue to hope for better alternatives than I myself have been able to devise; but for now, my response to you and to Bueller is necessarily harsh: "Who's kidding who?"

I have valuable contributions to make in improving Wikipedia, but I don't see how that salutary objective is served by allowing myself to be the punching bag for someone who appears to be bored, frustrated, unhappy, or who-knows-what. Surely this is something no one should have to endure. Critical comments and observations -- yes. Offensive provocation -- no.

For my purposes, your mild feedback is too obscure. In other words: I'm not worried that your words won't prove to be ultimately incorrect. I'm sure you're right, but that isn't very helpful in the current state of affairs. Indeed, I am taking all this in. I do recognize that your views are wise, as in the following crucial sentence you wrote:

  • "In order to accomplish anything here, you're going to have to learn to work with people who may not be immediately or apparently amiable, or who may be outright caustic in all their dealings with everyone."

What I'm trying to work through here can't be resolved by a process-oriented approach. I'm determined to solicit an enquiry of an entirely different nature.

Perhaps these are questions to which there are nothing but fluid answers. By explaining myself to you in this way, I hope to change the foundation from which I struggle to deal with the obstacle Bueller now presents. Absent this effort to reach out for help, I don't see how I can convert this experience into something from which I learn to do better in the future.

For today, my tentative conclusion is that I need to make an effort to be a little more "prickly" in 2008 than I have been in 2007; but the role model you and others present would seem to be encouraging a stance which is 180° from "prickly."

At the same time, my tentative plan is to try to remain open to the possibility that better strategies will present themselves over the course of coming months. This isn't much, but it's a step in a direction, perhaps even the wrong direction ... but I find no sure compass in those experiences which have worked out well.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the plagiarism comment, if there's no merit to the accusation it's not worth responding to other than to indicate that it's false. As for how to respond to people who insist on being antagonistic, if you can remain polite but firm in your stance, they will be more likely to tone down their rhetoric. This doesn't always happen, but it helps toward that. Another thing (which I've mentioned before) is the language you use. Yes, it's very proper and very academic, but it may also cause people to not want to respond as they may think you're talking down to them. You may not be talking down to them, but that may be the impression you given when using such language, and that may cause people to react negatively due to their perception of an "I'm better than you" attitude they may feel is being projected by your choice of words. I should note that I don't see that in your words, but I can see how others may perceive such an attitude. Please note that these comments are meant to be constructive. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've tried to be quite frank, and I appreciate your frank response. This is only a tentative first step, I guess.
I'll need to devote more thought to this aspect of my continuing participation in the Wikipedia project. The recent American political contest provided an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to announce boldly that she had "found her true voice" in New Hampshire. I can only hope that we have yet to discover my true voice -- whatever that may be; and if so, it's still possible that the counter-intuitive dissonance you've identified may somehow fall by the wayside. We'll see ....
In any case, I'm going to spend the next few days mulling over this piece of good advice:
  • "As for how to respond to people who insist on being antagonistic, if you can remain polite but firm in your stance, they will be more likely to tone down their rhetoric. This doesn't always happen, but it helps ...."
Thanks again for sharing your best guesses .... --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I think you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia, and I'm glad for the contributions you've made so far. I don't think you should take the actions and words of one less-than-friendly editor to be representative of all the editors with whom you will interact. Most editors with whom I've seen you work have been happy for your help (especially in WP:JA), so I recommend focusing on that as evidence that your input is needed and appreciated. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

I notice you've been removing links to Template:Contains Japanese text with the edit summary that it's being phased out. Can you tell me exactly where this decision was made? It seems to me that the TfD failed on the ground of no consensus, and removing it from pages wholesale looks like a dubious move. Orpheus (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's being discussed at MOS-JA, and no one seems to think it's needed. So, I'm being bold and beginning to remove it. There are still a couple hundred pages which use it, but it really isn't necessary and doesn't help any, especially when placed at the bottom of an article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that an unsuccessful TfD is a fairly good pointer that boldness isn't necessarily a good idea in this case. There were some good arguments for keeping it on that page, mainly those which pointed out that not all current operating systems install those fonts by default. We want Wikipedia to be accessible to computer novices, not make them wonder why there's all these strange boxes. Anyway, that's my take on the template itself - my opinion on removing it from pages is that you should stop until there's a clear consensus in favour of doing so. Orpheus (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the current discussion seems to favor it unanimously (or nearly so). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nihongo template

At first blush, I wondered if your recent tweak sits a bit uncomfortably on the page.

  • (cur) (last) 15:59, 22 January 2008 User:Nihonjoe (Talk | contribs) m (899 bytes) (change ? to Help)

I hadn't realized that this evolution has been discussed ad nauseam on the Template talk page.

No question that this change does resolve any lingering questions about the utility of the emplate's subtle superscript question mark ? .... It's an improvement, yes -- but, in my view, the alternative feels a little bit intrusive, distracting. To better appreciate my point, please scan Naidaijin to see the cacophony effect of massed help -- or even more dramatic, glance over the serial effect in Daijō-kan.

I wonder if it's possible to have another variation of the nihongo template in the same article

  • one template which uses the help for the first use of the template on a page ...?
  • another template which presents that older ? ...?

Maybe its best to leave your edit untouched for a few weeks while you garner further feedback from others?

If necessary, I would have no problem substituting the nihongo2 template in the Daijō-kan lists. Tentatively, I'll plan on making those changes later today or tomorrow. In addition, I'll volunteer to make similar edits in other articles where the multiple instances of help might appear awkward. Off-hand, can you think of any articles which might be improved by this kind of brisk editing?--Ooperhoofd (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed over here. You're welcome to participate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation?

I originally came to here to ask you about your opinion on a dispute over Manhwa and Manga. Because in the former article, many Japanese editors consistently appeared there to alter information without any proof. They strongly believe manhwa is the just translated Korean term and originated in Japan manga unlike peaceful letting on Chinese Manhua. Regardless of the nationality, the tendentious editing is not constructive. So, I tried to find any reference from English or Korean sites, but couldn't find any. I think they also don't seem to find any to back up their claim. If there is one, they might've added it already. I read the reference about Japanese influence on Korean manga which is attached to Japanese manga article, but the reference just states that "Manhwa is equivalent to manga".

I thought you're much knowledgeable of manga, so I need a third opinion or any one into manga or manhwa. Although I've seen several people to have accused you of pushing POV to articles and of not much active doing as admin duties except for Wiki Japan project, you're one of admin, so I thought you try to balance yourself with community. But that is my misunderstading per your comment at ANI. I checked on whether you're active this time or not, as seeing your contribution history, I woudn't need to bother you with this matter. I saw your groundless accusation on me of a sockpuppetry of the banned user User:Appleby. You just said the defaming comment on me in public. I was very upset but soon realized that you are just one of the party.

I've seen so many users with id names derived from ninja, nihon, yamato, sun, etc with single minded edits on Japanese related articles. But are they being suspected of sockpuppetry? Ney. My name is linked to Korean and Commons account and don't want to change it due to the similarity of the banned user. You wouldn't be surprised at Endroit's RFCU file on me. He made some effort to compare me with other Korean editors including Appleby after my suggestion to report an official file. Make an official file on me if Endroit's report is not satisfying. So you have to be patience for the result. I look forward to seeing you again after the result comes out and wonder what you would say to me for that. And I have always wanted to ask about one thing: Why are you holding the title? Your editings are not much different with ordinary editors unlike other sysops' activities --Appletrees (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Appleby wasn't a bad editor. He just tended to take things to extremes in some cases, especially in issues involving both Japan and Korea. He eventually tried the patience of too many admins and was indefinitely blocked from editing. He could come back if he wanted to change his ways, but I don't see that as likely. The only reason I made the comment there was because of a similarity in articles edited and methods of editing between Appleby and your contributions. If you aren't Appleby, I'm fine with that.
As for what admin things I do, I regularly close deletion discussions (most of which have nothing to do with Japan), I sometimes work on removing articles in CAT:CSD, and I do various other admin things. No, I don't spend 24 hours a day camping in WP:AN and WP:AN/I (or any of the other admin noticeboards) because I don't have as much time right now to do so, and I find my time is better spent doing things rather than particip[ating in every discussion on the noticeboards. I do pop in on occasion and participate in discussions which catch my eye, too.
Besides, as many people will tell you, being an admin makes me no better or worse than any other editor here (even those on Arbcom and those with checkuser abilities). You'll find there are a lot of admins who don't spend all of their time doing "adminey" things. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you're okay with the fact of regardless of whether I'm a sock of the user or not, because you're not suspected as the sock. You just accused me of sockpuppetry per the similar name and interest ranges. I say I feel offended by your rude comment in public without any evidence but with your mere assumption (bad faith) I don't know much about Appleby, but several people happened to mistake me with the user due to my account name. In my point of view, the banned user is "bad" because he fooled this community with his sockpuppetry. As for the closing admin' job, I witness that you have used your tool much for the project in which you've engaged. Sometimes, you quickly closed some of disputed nominations for Japanese side. I'm sorry but I don't think you're a good admin which is not only my thought. For the last paragraph, even admin who has to keep his ethic as an admin cheated community with sockpuppetry today! So, your comment is understandable per the incident? Nope. --Appletrees (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. As for the little bit of the above that actually sort-of made sense, if you look at my admin logs, you'll see that I've just as often sided with the Korean side in closing disputes as with the Japanese side. And as I've pointed out before, I am neither Japanese nor Korean (though I have been to both South Korea and Japan, and have many good Japanese and Korean friends). Your accusations of bias are completely unfounded. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for making my comment so harsh to you but your accusation at ANI made me furious much. I originally intended to ask you for a favor to end tendentious edit warring over Manhwa. I also have some regrettable feeling at you for a long time because you might know User:KoreanShoriSenyou, and with your knowledge of Japanese language, you may know what his account means. That is just an ethnic slur against Koran but he has kept his name for quite long time.
And I honestly say I happened to see you closing deletion discussions 5 or 6 times, so I said the only watched cases. (Korean articles are not much nominated compared to Japanese articles due to lack of interest)--Appletrees (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Until you mentioned him/her, I was unaware of User:KoreanShoriSenyou. Also, I have no idea what his/her name may mean as it's likely a coloquialism. As for closing deletion discussions, I've closed several hundred of them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, he was very active all over Japan-Korean related articles including manga and manhwa, so I thought you and another admin, LordAmeth may know him. His name refers to "exclusive use for disposal of Chosenjin" which is more than a coloquialism but closer to Nazi. --Appletrees (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree that's not a good username if that's what it means. While I occasionally participate in the Manga article, I don't know that I've done much (if anything) on the manhwa article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, you don't apologize for your accusation on me at all because the result of Endroit's RFCU don't come out yet? Oh, well, you might think Endroit is very good fellow for Japanese party, my party thinks contrary to that because of his unreasonable POV pushing. --Appletrees (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Get over yourself. And what exactly is the "Japanese party"? Yes, the majority of articles I edit are somehow related to Japan, but that's because that's where most of my expertise lies. Would you rather I edit articles where I don't know anything? I agree that Endroit can get "energetic" sometimes when editing, and that he does have a tendency to push people's buttons in the wrong way due to his enthusiasm. However, most of the time his edits are useful and NPOV.
All this stupid POV-pushing by both people supporting one side or the other in articles related to Korea and Japan is pathetically idiotic at its core. It really is possible to write a fair and balanced article which neutrally presents all sides of an issue without resorting to petty nationalistic edit warring and POV-pushing. Complaining about how POV the "other" side is while simultaneously POV-pushing is hypocritical at best, and that's the way a small subset of very vocal "pro-Japanese" and "pro-Korean" groups of editors have been doing for years now on Wikipedia. It's driven good editors away from important articles (such as Sea of Japan, for example) because they get tired of dealing with all the childish antics from POV-pushers on both sides. So, coming here and accusing me (or anyone else) of being in an alleged "Japanese party" is not going to earn you any brownie points. I'm deathly sick of all of that, and I'll more than likely just mentally mark you as one of the aforementioned POV-pushers who refuse to compromise and work toward making a good article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You just chide me to get over myself and disdainfully say more accusations? Even though you're incredibly uncivil, you're right on only one point in partial: An admin is not much different from any other users except the wiki tool. After all, you appear to be not much different from Endroit and KoreanShoriSenyou whose activities are considered more than "engergetic". You say as if you're not relevant to the "both" party, but that is not true. Enroit even had advocated to people that you're one of the "leading figures" of the party.
I loath any kind of dishonest things such as sockpuppetry or meatpuppet, or especially distorting information. Well, I want to plead to Japanese ultra right-wingers to just let Korean related article if they don't have any reliable references to prove anything. Your claims sounds like Korean editors have to bear whatever "stupid", "silly", "idiotic" (I quote your wonderful remarks) POV pushers's falsified information. I have several Japanese friends in life, and thankfully they're not like them. Maybe the the party here could be good friends of somebody. Your rationale of being neutral sounds meaningless because none can confirm your real life but by activities here, people judge you or anybody. As for hypocrisy, it is clearly shown in East Sea and Dokdo articles: the Japanese double standard. Anyway, I would not tolerate myself talking with you over this unproductive arguing and your false accusation because you're far from being neutral.--Appletrees (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on your comments, I'm going to assume you don't have a full command of the English language. If you did, you would understand that I'm sick of BOTH Japanese and Korean POV-pushers. BOTH groups have acted childishly here on the English Wikipedia. Your comments and actions have shown that you are likely one of the Korean POV-pushers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "leading figure of the party". There is not a Japanese "party" on Wikipedia any more than there is a Korean "party", especially not in the sense you are implying with your comments. There is a WikiProject Japan, just as there is a WikiProject Korea, but they are only ways to organize people with similar interests to work on related articles. Anyone is welcome to join any WikiProject, and the only requirement to join is a desire to improve those related articles. It's possible Endroit is referring to the fact that I founded WikiProject Japan (because there wasn't one at the time), but just because I started the project doesn't mean I'm necessarily a leader, in charge, or have any more say than any other member of the project. Everything is done by consensus with a goal of improving things all around.
As for my neutrality, I go out of my way to make sure I consider all sides, especially when acting as an admin. In several spats between Japanese and Korean POV-pushers, I've sided with what could be considered the Korean POV because that's what the consensus was. I think you need to take a step back and determine if you really want to continue down this path you've started. If you do, it's likely you'll continue to run into more and more people who are trying to keep a NPOV in all articles here, including Korean and Japanese articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I surely read you claim of being tired of both parties, but it doesn't sound convincing per your above uncivil comment. The English card is one of popular methods here to attack people whenever someone fails to seek a consensus. I've seen those kind of personal attacks between even native English speakers over different educational degrees or between British English, American English, or Ossi English. My mother language is certainly not English, so I had only linked images to here from commons until last September (I must thank for Japanese edit warriors' wonderful jobs over comfort women or so many others?). I'm also being tried of people bickering and disruptive wikistalking regardless of nationality. You already misjudged me as a sock and marked as then a nationalistic edit warrior, and more. I have my own thought and take a judge depending on circumstances. I said if Japanese right-wingers don't distort Korean-related articles, there will be NO or LESS WARRING, really. You're saying people like Endroit who accuses anybody of sockpupptry per his contributions, or KoreanShoriSenyou who always inserts something fabricated errors are trying to be NPOV and to improve Wikipedia? You must be joking. I welcome and want to cooperate with "good and neutral" people but not with such the people. I just came to seek a help but found that you're not that right person for meditation. So, please don't try to introduce yourself to me. That is all vain. --Appletrees (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop saying that I said that KoreanShoriSenyou was (or wasn't) NPOV. Until you brought him/her up, I'd never heard of or noticed him/her. Additionally, I've never said you were a sock, though I did indicate that I wouldn't be surprised if you were. There is a difference. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, if you don't understand English fluently, it's very easy to misunderstand or completely not understand the meaning behind various turns of phrase. My stating that this may be the case here with you does not mean that I think you are dumb or less intelligent, but that I don't think you are completely understanding the conversation. I have the same problem in Japanese conversations as I don't always understand colloquial meanings right away.
As for "introducing" myself, you're the one who came here and started tearing into me. If you need some help, I'm always glad to help out where I can, but as far as I can tell you haven't asked for any assistance. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about Brazilian manga

I had indeed known that manga was translated into Portuguese for the Brazilian market. Here's a reference <http://www.animeondvd.com/news/pr.php?pr_view=1008> to a English-language report on Panini Brazil (thus spelled; not Panini Brasil). There are a few more English-language sites, but most are in Portuguese, a language I do not read. Here's a good example: <http://www.educacional.com.br/reportagens/japao/cultura.asp>, which has the advantage of having impeccable credentials. We didn't include them because most are in Portuguese, not a language familiar to many Wiki readers, I suspect, and also because we simply ran out of space. A more systematic discussion of the issue would need a separate article.

First question: I do NOT wish to respond to Samuel Sol, the editor who raised the issue, on the FAC discussion page. I am not at all sure that it's either proper to do so or necessary at this point -- we can respond later when more comments have come in. I assume -- yes? -- that you concur about not my commenting on anything at this time.

Second, if you go to the second website, you'll find a quite charming image of a Brazilian manga magazine, called "Manga Tropical," that might be used (a) to put in another image and (b) to help resolve the question that Samuel Sol raised. Again, I do not think we should do anything at the moment, but should instead wait for more comments. But I'd like you to know that there may be ways to solve both these issues together, and quite directly.

Third, I glanced at Appletrees' comments above, and don't think the manga article is involved in the issues he is raising. I won't comment about it further, but I'd like you to know I don't think we need to worry about the manga article in regard to issues he is bringing up.

So if you'd let me know your opinion of the Brazilian material, I'd be interested.

Timothy Perper (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your third question first, no, Appletrees' comments have nothing to do with the Manga article at FAC. In regard to the first and second questions, the AnimeonDVD link is to a press release. Press releases are generally considered to be borderline reliable sources as they are produced with marketing in mind. There are some facts contained in them, but they are usually written up to make something look as good as possible (extremely POV, in other words). I'm not sure how it would (or could) be used to good effect in this instance. While I can see a need for more information on international (meaning "outside Japan") publication of manga, I don't think more needs to be added to the Manga article. I could see a separate article being written, though it would need careful consideration in order to give it a good focus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks -- we're in agreement. I certainly don't want to start such an article, and don't feel we could or should add much of anything to the article (the image of "Manga Tropical" aside, I mean, and that's for later). If Samuel Sol wants to add new material now, that's fine with me provided it isn't too long. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perplexed

I would greatly appreciate your help in an extremely perplexing matter. I've been accused of starting a "nonsense" article, "Five Clicks to Jesus", by User:Ferdiaob, even though I definitely did not create this article. If you could check the article logs and somehow help resolve this matter, I would greatly appreciate your efforts. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 07:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied in a couple places. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see this to clear things up. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank you, yet again, for your help in clarifying this matter. I also offer my sincere apologies for any unnecessary frivolities you might have had to deal with while resolving this issue. Your assistance in this was again of great help, and it is not without gratitude that I acknowledge your invaluable help in all of this. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Per the WP:MOS guidelines, which titles are we supposed to use for manga/anime articles? I can't figure out if we're supposed to utilise Romaji titles or English ones, for example, is the series 666 Satan at its right place or should it be at its official English title? Also, I'm having second thoughts on whether Neko Majin is titled correctly also. Please reply on your talk page. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS-AM is pretty clear: use the official English title unless the Japanese title is more common. Which is more common? (I'm not familiar with either series, though I've heard of the second) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing, I don't know. How do I find out if these pages are at their correct names? Neko Majin seems right, but is it the best name? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are unsure, I suggest posting on the WP:ANIME talk page and asking there. There are a lot of people there who have a decent amount of knowledge on this subject, and one or more may have the information on which is more common. If there is an English-language release, that will almost always be the most common title, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Five Clicks

I'm not going to argue about this one with you because I'm not an admin and I can't check deleted contribs to tell you exactly why you received the notice. However, as I tried to explain to you before, the notices were generated using a an automatic script that searches for the original contributor. If you wish to know why you received such a message, I suggest you ask an admin to check the page history for you. If not, I suggest you simply let it drop. Redfarmer (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response posted. Redfarmer (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese pens and stationery

Nihonjoe, I've laid out my plan at User talk:Endroit/Japanese pens and stationery. It took a while because I was trying to locate the basic sources.

I will start editing the target articles, starting with Tombow. I anticipate it may take all weekend, and some modification to the text may be necessary. Please jump in any time, and help wherever you can. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've completed moving contents of the "Pens" section to their respective articles, as I documented in User:Endroit/Japanese pens and stationery. I'll work some more on the target articles (Pilot, Pentel, etc.) this weekend.
I wanted to create a new category to cover all these articles, but don't know whether to call it Category:Japanese stationery or Category:Japanese pens and stationery. Can you decide for me?
Also, I don't think I can do justice to the "Erasers" section which still remains at User:Endroit/Japanese pens and stationery. If you have an idea how to make good use of it, please do so. (Otherwise, I'll take a look at it again in a few weeks.)
Thank you for all your help.--Endroit (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures of Pepero

Hi! What does the 'writer' in the info. box mean? It looks like a mistake. Please see the related links in Japanese. [2] [3] Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The writer part of the infobox refers to the head writer of the series (i.e. who was involved in the scripting); in Japanese credits, this is often referred by "shirīzu kōsei" (シリーズ構成) or "series composition". I hope Nihonjoe doesn't mind me answering for him (^_^). ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 12:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi 厳流! I still don't know which one is the writer. See [4] [5] [6]They have the complete list of stuff and cast. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The writer is Shinich Yukimuro now in the article. But his name is found as the screenwriter of Episode 8, 13 and 23 in the lists above and the name is not Shinich, but shunich Yukimuro. 雪室 俊一. Oda Mari (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. Found a page in English about Yukimuro. [7] Oda Mari (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the page with more information regarding the staff, and added references for the information. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I corrected the name of the lyricist of the theme songs. The series organizer Yoshio Umezu/楳図良雄 is an older brother of Kazuo Umezu and asked Kazuo to write the lyrics. That what ja WP says. And '風よつたえて' means something like 'Wind, please carry my message'. Please think the better English translated title. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Oda Mari (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Posting a little late here, but the "writer" is usually the script writer (screenplay, teleplay). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Samurai archive articles

Hey Joe. According to Exiled Ambition's page, you deleted most of the pages he created on samurai. I see that they were deleted as copyvios from Samurai Archives. Most of these pages are being recreated; Date Harumune is just one of the latest ones I've seen. I was wondering if I should mark these pages again as copyvios, or if it's been ruled somewhere that these articles should be allowed to exist. If I'm bringing up the past for no reason, I apologize, but since I keep seeing these articles being created, I just wanted to know how I should proceed. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless they are copyvios again, we can leave them alone. Darin doesn't seem to show any remorse for plagiarizing (now or when he was first blocked), but unless he's going back to his old ways, I'm fine with letting him continue contributing. I did remove the attack paragraph and fair use image from his user page, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess they're not direct copyvios, but they're certainly chock full of WP:OR. They can't be nominated for AfD for that, but I guess the best thing I can do is just tag them. Aside from that, would you advise anything else? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
They actually can be nominated for OR, but it's best to mark them as OR for a few months before doing that in order to give the people working on the articles some time to address that concern. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but Exiled has an issue with my tagging of his articles with OR and refimprove. We're discussing it over User talk:HelloAnnyong#Your Verification and Original Research Claims here, and your input would be more than welcome. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to stay out of this one unless I'm absolutely needed. I will keep an eye on it, though, and comment if I think it's necessary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Bylund

Hi! You seem to have added the wrong descpription of the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Bylund. There hasn't been established any "basic notability" as you wrote (the article actually still fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria), but since a majority of the few people who participated in the discussion voted to keep (some who were affiliated in the Anarchism Task Force) the article should probobly be kept anyway. /Slarre (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you see it that way as the outcome was not what you wanted (since you were !voting for deletion there). Regardless of what you think, the majority of people participating in the discussion (as well as me, checking the references to make sure they met the requirements, which is what I, as the closing admin, should do on discussions such as this one when closing them) determined that the basic requirement of multiple independent reliable sources was met. If you disagree, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you'll need to specify where Per Bylund has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" and where the "depth of coverage" is "substantial" (as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria). /Slarre (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to specify anything as the references are there in the article. Again, if you disagree, take it to WP:DRV. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What reference in the article are you referring to? As far as I can see, all references that are listed in the article are partisan sources that are not independent of the subject (i.e. libertarian/anarchist websites and forums). /Slarre (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, I understand you don't like it that the article was kept, and until I closed it, I had never heard of the guy, so I obviously don't have any preconceived notions of the guy. However, based on the information presented in the article and in the AfD, I believe the criteria were met. If you disagree with the decision, please take it to WP:DRV. I'm not going to argue the merits of each individual link with you here as I couldn't care less about this particular article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you believe the criteria was met then you'll need to specify how it was met since you made that decision. Just one source or link, that's not so hard isn't it? /Slarre (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
He's been the editor of a well-known Libertarian anthology, the editor of Libertarian Forum, and is cited by his Libertarian peers. That alone has him meeting WP:BIO. Again (since you are obviously not paying attention here), if you disagree with my decision (especially after I've explained it multiple times now), take it to WP:DRV. I will not reply regarding this again as you obviously have a very POV attitude regarding this article, enough that the subject of the article himself has commented regarding your crusade against him. Either take it to WP:DRV, or drop it and go find some other pet project. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand, that was all I was asking for. No need for you to get personal and attack my motives, please read WP:CIVIL. /Slarre (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what your motives are. I was merely commenting on your apparent vendetta, and that this vendetta was apparent enough for Bylund to actually comment on it. Whatever your reasons for your POV, the appearance of POV is very apparent to anyone who looks at this objectively. Again, I have no idea what your motives are for this apparent POV, but the POV is readily apparent. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Money Masters producer, author, etc. pages

I think the pages Patrick_S._J._Carmack and William_T._Still only exist because of their connection to The Money Masters, which was itself non-notable and unverifiable. Perhaps these can be deleted as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baked ham (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate them for deletion if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

request userfy The Money Masters

  • Hi, would you please userfy the deleted article for me?
  • Also, I am interested exactly how you decided delete when I would say "no consensus", looking at the debate. Would you please elaborate on how the arguments of the "keep" votes falter in your opinion?

Thx, — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote the rebuttals of the keep votes:
  • Do you have a reliable source for this claim of notability?
  • The fact that it's useful is not a compelling argument.
As there are no reliable sources for this article, it fails both WP:N and WP:V, just as I stated in my closing notes. The page has been userfied. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for userfying. How would you define consensus? The article survived for 5 years, and suddenly it is decided by less than 10 editors, in controversy, to be non-noticeable? Verifiability can be fixed. If there are 3 verifiable facts in there, the article deserves to be trimmed and fixed. Would you please tell me you view on "consensus decisions" ? Regards, — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can source the article with 2-3 reliable sources discussing the video itself (not the person who made the video), then feel free to recreate it. I have nothing against the topic personally, and was only processing the AfD. You can see my view on consensus by reading WP:CONSENSUS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AfD

Thank you. We live and learn. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please let me know if you have any questions. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmaster (Star Fox)

Hello! You closed that discussion as "delete;" however, there were 3 for merge, 6 for delete, 4 for redirect, and 3 for keep. Thus, wouldn't in a no consensus discussion like this one at least a merge and redirect be a fair compromise? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, AfD is not a vote, and the keep opinions didn't present any compelling support for that position. The redirect/merge opinions didn't know where to merge the information and redirect the article. If you want to redirect the article, I'm fine with that, however. If you need access to the deleted material in the article (in order to merge anything), let me know. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Perhaps the best place for a redirect would be to Star Fox (series), as that is where someone suggested in the article with a merge of the sourced information to Fox McCloud, which is what was also suggested in the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to create a redirect. I have no problem with that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Ben (MLS fan club)

You recently said while closing this afd, "As there were a number of editors suggesting merging, I recommend taking that discussion to the appropriate talk page." Sadly, this is not possible, as the merge target has ceased to be! Just thought I'd let you know. We're now left with the strange anomaly of an article about a fan club (which is deemed notable) for a club that doesn't exist (and is therefore considered un-notable)! Wikipedia throws up some strange situations sometimes. Robotforaday (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fun! Feel free to discuss on the talk page what you want to do, then. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've brought it up at WP:FOOTBALL, although to be honest, I rather like the silliness of the situation. It's a funny old wikipedia. Robotforaday (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Tom Freda

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tom Freda. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Black Kite 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Fine. I've removed the DRV. The subject of the bio is (evidently) non-notable, and IMO should be deleted or redirected; however it seems that
  • boldly redirecting it is pointless, it just gets reverted
  • using the talkpage is pointless because the self-appointed owners of the article want it kept (and it's so obscure that no-one else reads the talkpage)
  • so the only option is AfD, where four people (Three people interested in Canadian Republicanism including a very suspicious SPA, and an editor who votes Keep on everything) unsurprisingly vote keep, and despite them giving no good reason, and the article still not asserting any independent notability, the article is Kept.

I can't see any way forward, so I'll give up. Black Kite 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as you don't even try to discuss it with other editors, you will be right. If, after discussing it you find that they are unwilling to work with you at all, you can begin a request for comments to bring in editors who wouldn't otherwise be there in order to obtain more outside input into the article. As far as I can tell, all you've done is try to move it (which got reverted), try to delete it (which didn't work), and then give up. You haven;t tried at all to engage in any kind of discussion with the other editors working on the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with you, but the comments made in the AfD make it obvious that I would just be kicking a deceased equine. It's not that important in the great scheme of things. Black Kite 01:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding AFD closure of Pakalomattom /Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil

Deletion Review for Pakalomattom

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pakalomattom. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion Review for Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

- Tinucherian (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Bylund

Hi, you closed that AfD as a keep on the grounds that notability had been established by references. I was wondering what references you were referring to. Only secondary non-trivial mentions count, so I really don't see any reason this topic is notable.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See the section several up from here (now archived here). If that doesn't answer your questions, then please take it to WP:DRV. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating Japanese wikipedia articles

Hi Nihonjoe, I've just started translating a few articles into English from the Japanese wikipedia. I'm not too sure if I've got the format right, and I haven't added any categories. Do you think you could check over them and put in the right categories and fix up anything else that looks unprofessional? Ones I've done so far include: Sumiyoshi Sanjin (have translated part of the Japanese article. May add some more detail) Suminoe no Tsu (article about Japan's first international port) Sumiyoshi-ku (already existed but I put in some more detail) Abeno-ku (as per Sumiyoshi-ku) Thanks, j-e-translator —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-e-translator (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The only real issue I can see is on Suminoe no Tsu, which is pretty vague about exactly where it is. With location articles, the format for the beginning sentence should be along the lines of "X place is located in/near/south of/north of/etc. of Y place in Z, A Prefecture, Japan." This is especially important for lesser-known locations. Feel free to categorize them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Benevolent Dictator For Life

A while ago you were the closing editor for the Benevolent Dictator For Life article's AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benevolent Dictator for Life (2nd nomination)). It looks like the page has been recreated at Benevolent Dictator For Life. I think this is grounds for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure, and I wanted to check with you. Also, I wanted to ask if you could userfy the previously deleted article to my user space, along with its talk page. I wanted to see if I could improve its failings as of its AFD, and make it useful enough to re-introduce to the encyclopedia. Thanks a lot. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and userfied. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese name-style question

Hi, Nihonjoe. I just took a look at an article I started on Teruo Ishii last year, and I notice this awkward name, "Influences: Rampo Edogawa". Shouldn't this author's name be an exception to the "Japanese names Western-order" name rule, since it ruins the pun on Edgar Allan Poe? Dekkappai (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the author article explains the wordplay well enough, and the pronunciation isn't close enough for most people to understand it. It should be fine the way it is. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
OK-- He'll always be "Edogawa Rampo" to me though. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Me, too, but our personal preferences shouldn't be an influence here. I just don't see enough reason to make an exception to the guideline here. Cheers back at you. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MoneyBar

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that! Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We're here to help each other out. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)