User talk:The Hokkaido Crow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gemstone

Hi - I just reverted your move of gemstone. The article is for the most used sense of the word. Also, please do not make moves of major articles without first discussing on the talk page and reaching concensus. Thanks, Vsmith 15:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I was being bold. I disagree that this is a major article, that consensus was needed, or that the revert was appropriate. But I find it not important enough to contend. Happy editing. The Hokkaido Crow 00:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan protein info

Hi, would you consider moving the bulk of the information you posted on Veganism to the PDCAAS page? You have a lot of good information but I feel like it's too dense in the context of the Veganism article. PDCAAS is a stub, and could use the expansion, while Veganism would do better with a brief summary with a link to the rest of the info. --Mumblingmynah 21:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I don't own any of the articles or content, I was just trying to de-clutter Protein. The Hokkaido Crow 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done as you requested. The Hokkaido Crow 15:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good job! I think that works much better. --Mumblingmynah 15:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Format test

This is a test to see whether there is a problem with signing 4 tildes as has been noticed on other user talk pages. The Hokkaido Crow 01:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deeceevoice arbitration

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

An RfC is a "Request for Comment", so I provided a comment that I hoped might help her understand how neutral others view her lapses in civility. An RfA is a totally different thing and I do not support it in this case, because I see no single incident that rises to the standard needed for arbitration. In fact I find it a little creepy and sad that you seem to have created this handle solely for the purpose of prosecuting this action, and if I do weigh in on the RfA, this will constitute the bulk of my observation. The Crow 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Examination Rejected

You requested a copyright examination regarding Derwin Brown and Sidney Dorsey. Sadly copyright examinations is not the right place for your request. The most common reason is that the content has already been added/uploaded to Wikipedia. Such cases (violations or not) are taken care of at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

• If, after careful reading of the copyright examinations page, you still think it is the right place for your request, use the copyright examinations talk page to discuss the case.
• If you have problems trying to find the appropriate place for your request, consult the copyright problems talk page.

Your request will eventually be moved to List of requests which don't belong here on the copyright examinations page. Please try to find the right place for your request as soon as possible. We hope that your request will find the right place and get answered. --Easyas12c 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese dialects

Could I ask you to take a look at this edit? I'm totally out of my depth here, but some people have been complaining on WP:AN that this user's edits on dialects border on vandalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed the specific edit you linked here, and it appears to me a generally correct improvement to the article, done in good faith.The Crow 13:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macht

See Talk:David_Macht#Accuracy_of_phytopharmacology MickWest 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney

You voted "Merge". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be bold!

Re:Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Don't be afraid to just throw yourself in and start deleting stuff. That's what makes Wikipedia work because there's too many people trying to use it for their own benefit, though few of them will resist when they are set on the right path. Don't be afraid of the people who fight back (I can see that you aren't) and use the rules to your benifit (though just use simple logic if you can). Keep it up!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kawaii

Affirm vote added. I'm giving it one last shot at disproving the claim of the elusive kawaii style and kawaii fashion as I don't believe any of the sorces give any indication of it's existence (and you know as well as I do there are no Kawaii goods beyond personal opinion. Have put it up for the vote, so if you want to add your support it may help remove this piece of misinformation. Barryvalder 12:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you wrote something like "It needs to be added seeing as the discussion is still ongoing (although a number of our feline friend's hotly disputed points have since been thrown out of the reckoning).". While this is true, I'd ask you to consider not inciting him or responding to his over-the-top remarks, or referencing his discredited arguments. He's come back in with guns blazing. I'm trying to talk informally to an administrator he trusts to cool him down, and it may be necessary to make other steps, but this won't work if there is any appearance of someone re-opening the wound. I agree (and so do many others, it would appear from the document trail) that this user presents a unique challenge to one's sense of restraint, but please join me in doing the best you can. The Crow 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What I wrote was needlessly incendiary and I shouldn't have written it given the volatile nature of that user. I'm still very new to this whole Wikipedia game and am still just learning the ropes. However, for the first discussion I choose to get involved in I've been unfortunate to encounter such a unique user...Barryvalder 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Challenging learning experiences are the best ones! The Crow 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just happened across this [[1]]. Would appear we're not the first ones to have problems with this user.Barryvalder 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I do admit that I forked Cuteness and gutted Kawaii, because I thought that they belong in seperate articles. I did not propose that we merge them together. I'd like to keep them seperate, where cuteness can talk about the cutesy phenomenon, and kawaii can talk about the word and it's many uses. They don't really belong in one article, that's been my view all along.Bethereds 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal resolution

Your resolution outlines exactly the sort of consensus I hoped to promote by listing it for AfD. I guess it will take a while for some people to realize that sometimes pages are listed on AfD for the sake of improvement (where possible), not deletion. Heck I didn't even vote!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could have fooled me, I certainly thought you wanted it deleted. I'd have liked it to be deleted, honestly the consensus I proposed wasn't what I hoped for. But it's not going to be deleted, so we must at least help it become a better article. The Crow 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'd be lying if I said I didn't want it deleted. But that means about the same as saying that I wished half the members of Morning Musume would die horrible deaths through the window of the Romance Car: it's not going to happen. I've spent some good time with AfDs, and while I think that it's far from perfect (the voting systems on Wiki are seriously flawed, and there's a growing need for a new system that really works, and represents consensus), it's one of the most effective tools on Wikipedia, for lots of reasons. Almost all of the other animecruft articles I've listed for deletion have been deleted pretty easily though, and I have a little faith in the system.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, and oops! It seems I mistook your user page for your talk page... wikinoobed! すまん！  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That was actually what I had hoped from the beginning, I believe I made a couple mentions of it on the AfD. I agree(d) it would be a bad idea to merge a lot of that info into Culture of Japan, mainly because of the size of the article, but most of the opposers seem to "glaze over" my suggestions on Cuteness in Japan, probably because they want to promote the use of the word itself, though I'm not sure exactly why.

Proposing a move to CiJ would probably cause a lot more heat than would be productive, and I figure the best way to go about this is to create Cuteness in Japan first, including as much verifiable info as possible in a Wikipedian-approved encyclopedic format, and then argue for a "merge-into", pointing out that all the valid information of the kawaii article are already included. I believe it's a pretty solid path of action and it won't flare tempers too much, as well as creating a title that Wikipedians and Deletionists can be happy with (from this sub-Deletionist Wikipedian's POV anyways).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination)

Thanks for trying to clear up the page — but the nominator's initial reason and vote isn't bulleted, only those that come after it. I've deleted your comment, in order to keep things looking clear; I hope that that's OK. If you object, I can replace it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Sidneydorsey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sidneydorsey.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent work together on Melaleuca (company)

I wanted to drop you a line and tell you that I'm sorry that editing the Melaleuca article with me was so contentious. There were two reasons for this. The first is that it seemed to be the community consensus in AfD to make the claims of quackery more prominent. (I acknowledge the possibility that there was piling on, but I think the community had good points.) The other reason is that your strident defense of the article in talk and AfD made me suspicious that you actually worked for the company or something. I am now content that your concern was just keeping it NPOV and avoiding bias (as you indicate on your userpage). In any case, though I never accused you of secretly being a PR stooge, I was not acting in the spirit of good faith, and for that I apologize. The process was unnecessarily stressful for both of us. In any case, I think we've turned out a good article and should both be proud of the fruits of this process, even if it was a tedious and difficult one.--Kchase02 T 17:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I understand the reason for the confusion and I did not find it inordinately stressful. I just thought the company was notable enough to have at least a stub. But the AfD then put me in the position of defending the article and trying to keep it neutral when everyone understandably suspected it of being spam and weighting it toward attacks and fraud. So I'm in a somewhat embarassing position of appearing to vigorously defend a company I ordinarily never would, just because it's my article, I want it kept, and I want it neutral. At any rate the contention has produced a better article faster than the stub I'd planned to leave there. So, no worries. The Crow 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you took that well. I think we've turned out a good article.--Kchase02 T 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete nomination

Hi. You didn't perform the last step: add {{subst:afd3|pg=NAME OF ARTICLE}} at the bottom of the list of AfD nominations of the day, in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006_June_14. There is an easy way to remember everything: after adding {{subst:afd}} to the article, you can click on the "Show" link in the bottom-right corner; this will open the rest of the box, which contains the instructions for completing the nomination. - Liberatore(T) 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sake

I think we disagreed a little bit about sake and beer. Andrew Young put it in a way I can live with. I myself see sake as being sake, beer as being beer and wine as being wine. I don’t edit a lot at the English Wikipedia as you can also read at my user page. When you link me to where you can find me normally, you’ll understand more. If you have any questions or disagree with me about sake let me know. Normally you can find me here for a quick reaction. Best regards Sake-simon 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer Andrew Young's version; it is better worded than mine. I agree with you that sake is not beer. However, many people call it "rice wine". It is much closer to beer in that it is a product of multiple fermentation of grain. "Rice beer" would be a more appropriate simplification, although that is also a problematic simplification, because sake is in a class of its own and there are other kinds of rice beer. I feel like this correction should appear beside any mention of "rice wine." On a side note, I notice the article does not address the brewing process directly, so I will be adding a section on this, and I welcome your input. The Crow 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No there is a big difference, in multiple fermentation of grain. Beer making does take place like that, sake does not. I have beer in the fridge made out of rice, it is beer not sake. The first step in sake brewing is injecting rice with koji-kin. The first step of making beer is making a mash that changes starch into sugar. Then the whole thing is fermenting. With sake the process takes places at the same time, parallel fermentation. Starch with help of Koji-kin changes into glucose and the glucose is fermenting.

You are correct, in sake brewing this happens in a single step. However, in this single step, there are still 2 separate processes taking place at the same time. This is why sake is called multiple parallel fermentation. If you google on "multiple parallel fermentation" you will see that most of the search results are about sake. Wine is single fermentation, so it is not like sake or beer. I'm not saying sake is the same as beer, just that it is related to beer. The Crow 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quit right about articles. I already made the Dutch article; Sake brewing, Sake-rice and so on. I will definitely look at these new articles to come. If you need my input? You are more then welcome. Best regards Sake-simon 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am making only a new section... not a new article. Unless the section grows too large. Please see Sake#Brewing and improve if you can. The Crow 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I will look at it, just give me a few days. I´ll come back on you. Best regards, Sake-simon 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I count six ways to make the shubo or moto;

• Sokujo(速醸)
• Ko on Toka (高温糖化)
• Kimoto (生酛)
• Akita ryu Kimoto (生酛流秋田)
• Yamahai (山廃)
• Bodai-methode, (Japanese character I don´t know)

Name giving, there are only two (Kimoto and Yamahai)(as far as I know). Youre advise on this please? I added a picture as well. Best regards Sake-simon 12:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Regarding your recent edit [2], please remember to not remove AfD tags until the issue is settled. If evidence of notability does exist, then feel free to mention it on the AfD discussion. (Also, please don't take this personally, as you're a great editor :D)--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I intended to comment on the AfD, but the first template you added did not link to an AfD discussion. I'm not sure why that occurred, but it appeared to be an attempt to delete the article without discussion, which I would oppose. I have no problem with the template you've re-added, since it does link to an AfD discussion. If I can avoid this kind of misunderstanding in the future, please let me know how. The Crow 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I may have accidently made a typo while nominating the article, so I apologize for any misinterpretation that it mighy have caused.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you used the {{prod}} template, which does not link to the deletion discussion. This does not encourage a full and transparent discussion of the proposed deletion. A more above-board way would be to use Template:AfD_in_3_steps. This is the first time I've noticed this about the prod template and I find it disturbing; I will probably list it for deletion. The Crow 18:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also: Per the Template:prod: You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. A prod template may be removed by anyone, for any reason, with or without comment. Your recourse is then to go to AfD. The prod comment appears to me just a way to accomplish a deletion without a discussion, and I've nominated that template for deletion. I doubt it will actually be deleted, so just keep in mind that a prod template is fair game for removal with or without comment by anyone. Removal of a prod template is just an implicit way of saying "I disagree with summary deletion; go through AfD." The Crow 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSF references no longer used except for Macht which I just added

BSF references no longer used except for Macht which I just added. ken 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] BTW

Thanks for doing the unrewarding job of watching Bible scientific foreknowledge and your patience there. --Pjacobi 20:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! p.s. -- a little help would not be out of line. The Crow 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case

You're welcome to join the case against KBuffalo, if you want. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gatchaman info

Hi there,

I maintain one of the big Gatchaman sites, and it looks like you did a lot of the work on the Gatchman entry for Wikipedia. I'm finally updating the site with CSS and current text, and your Wiki stuff is so stellar I think I'm going to end up quoting some of it.

It's a throwback to my early days on the web (and the fact that I'm a neurotic academic) to want to cite things, so I wanted to check if you would mind being cited, and how you want it done. I'd also love to get my hands on some of the original background information you either dug up or pieced together. *Insert gush about being on the information superhighway, with Wiki being one of the star stops. When I first did the site, in 1995, ever little bit of information took months to track down. This is much better!*

I don't maintain a talk page on Wikipedia, and I have to update everything on the Gatch site, so even my email addy is outdated there. If you want to email me, you can reach me at cmkatsesama AT netscape DOT net.

Best,

Katsesama 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. About 6 years ago I had a little rush of nostalgia for BOtP and combed through the web to assemble a little trivia, and I thought Wikipedia was a good place to pull it all together. At the time, I was a little naive to WP:OR and so it was probably not totally kosher, as well as being a bit fancrufty for Wikipedia. But if you find it useful for your purposes, you're welcome to use it. The Crow 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuteness battle with anon user

I've been watching and re-reverting the removal of your image. Sorry about that.

I too am trying to get to Japan, as you are trying to return there.

And in reading your talk page, there's someone with a similar username to mine. How awkward.

You have a happy new year!

Chris 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. We get a hardhead every now and then who seems to want to convert "kawaii" into an English word meaning "anime". Sometimes it's tough to dislodge them. Happy New Year to you too! The Crow 14:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibogaine

Hello. A friend and I added the reference to Good Will Hunting on the ibogaine page. I know the sentence itself doesn't give additional information about ibogaine, but it is a reference in popular media, and given the positive reception and reputation of Good Will Hunting all these years later, I think the mention is both relevant and warranted. I have restored the reference, and I hope I have persuaded you that it deserves the space. Thank you.

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree. In that appearance it is only mentioned as a single, isolated word, completely absent any context or other information about what ibogaine is (or isn't). The stature of the movie does not establish relevance, only notability. Without relevance, it really needs not to be in there. The Crow 14:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I haven't reverted your edit this time, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is irrelevant. The character Skylar is a chemistry student taking advanced organic chemistry at Harvard, and her assignment, to assign the proton spectrum of ibogaine, gives indication of ibogaine's complexity as an organic molecule, as well as the status accorded to it in an organic chemistry curriculum. With 26 hydrogens in a handful of different chemical environments, the proton spectrum is no trivial matter, and while I concede ibogaine is probably mentioned more as a plot device, the mention is nonetheless relevant in indicating to non-specialists how the molecule is viewed within organic chemistry classes. I hope you'll revert your deletion; I will check back here for a reply. Thank you.

[edit] Pardon, please?

Mr. Crow, could you please explain to me the reasoning behind removing my additions to the article, "Scientific foreknowledge in Sacred Texts", including "Examples of Alleged Biblical Foreknowledge" and "Examples of Alleged Qur'anic Foreknowledge"? I thought these were valuable additions, and I put in some extra care to make them professional. I see no point in removing them. -Dan Marcum (Dmar198) P.S. - If you did not remove them, I apologize; but your name appeared next on the History list after the first where the additions were still available, and they are now no longer available. Dmar198 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Dmar198

Wikipedia entries must have sources. The entries I removed had no sources. If you look at the talk page for that article, you see there has a been a long history of people trying to add unsourced content. Please see WP:Attribution for more information on Wikipedia standards. The Crow 12:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'anic examples had a citation; it is listed at the bottom of the page as [3]. This is where I took each example. If you think I must add a source for the Biblical examples, then I will, but I think the examples must be kept. They are quite useful.

And you misunderstand my use of "Some say". This is not intended to be a generality so that I can avoid citing my reference; it is intended to show the neutrality of the article. I couldn't exactly say, "The Bible says that Earth is suspended in space", because this is based on one interpretation. That's why I used "Some say". For a source document of my references of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge, see [4]. 76.6.163.21 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Dmar198

[edit] Spiritual use of cannabis

While Benet's conclusion regarding the psychoactive use of cannabis is not universally accepted among Jewish scholars, there is general agreement that cannabis is used in talmudic sources to refer to hemp fibers, as hemp was a vital commodity before linen replaced it. (Encyclopedia Judaica. Volume 8. p. 323.)

On 23:03, 17 January 2007 you removed the above statement from Spiritual use of cannabis, with the edit summary, Remove misattributed statement (source doesn't support this statement).[5] I am very interested in how you came to that conclusion. I'm adding the statement back in until I hear your reply. —Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)